Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Double jeopardy research paper
Double jeopardy research paper
Double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Double jeopardy research paper
The criminal justice system is not perfect. Throughout the process there can be many errors that can result in the incarceration of an innocent person. There are examples of this in the case of Gerald Wayne Davis. Faulty eyewitness testimony and double jeopardy are two of errors that will be reviewed in this case. The focus is the use of unreliable scientific evidence. In the past non-DNA testing of evidence was use to prove guilt or innocence. These tests can be inconclusive and can be used to mislead a jury.
Today there is DNA testing, a more exact method of testing, that can either prove or disprove a person connection to a crime. Whether a person was convicted by misrepresentation of an eyewitnesses or science today there is a test which can reverse the injustice suffered by the defendant. It is important that these tests be administered before another innocent person dies in prison.
On February 18, 1986, Gerald Wayne Davis was accused of raping a family friend while she was at his home doing his laundry (Connors, Lundregan, Miller & McEwen, 1996). The only witnesses to this alleged crime were Gerald Davis, his father, the victim (Connors, 1996). The victim left the defendant’s home and went to a friend’s house and reported the details of what had occurred (State v. Davis, 1988). The friend called the police and the victim was taken to a medical center for examination; she had a cut lip, abrasions on her face and genital area, there was seminal fluid on her panties, and she was missing a shoe and her jacket (State v. Davis, 1988). Based on the victim’s story police went to Davis’ home where they found the victim’s missing shoe, her jacket; they also found sheets, towels, and clothes belonging to the defendant that displaye...
... middle of paper ...
...gy. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from USA.gov website: http://www.dna.gov/
Innocence project. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2011, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php
Lectric Law Library. (2011). Habeas corpus. Retrieved November 28, 2011, from
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
Making the jurors the “experts”: The case for eyewitness identification jury instructions. (2011, March). Boston College Law Review, 52(2), 651-693. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Martin Berry, S. (n.d.). When experts lie. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from Truthinjustice.org website: http://truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm
State v. Davis, No. 17915 (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia Dec. 14, 1988) (LEAGLE).
Wiseman, S. (2010, Spring). Innocence after death. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 60(3), 687-750. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
In today's society no crime is a perfect crime, with the use of DNA testing and modern advancements in health and forensics even the smallest piece of someone's genome can be cultured and used to identify even the most devious of criminals. The use of DNA testing was able to help change the life of Gene Bibbins for the better and further proved how DNA testing is able to be used to help clarify who the culprit actually is. Gene Bibbins life was forever changed the night that he was unjustifiably arrested for aggravated rape which resulted in his being sentenced to life in prison, only for his case to eventually be reevaluated sixteen years after his conviction, leading to his exoneration.
This paper will consider eye witness testimony and its place in convicting accused criminals. Psychology online (2013) defines “eye witness testimony” as a statement from a person who has witnessed a crime, and is capable of communicating what they have seen, to a court of law under oath. Eye witness testimonies are used to convict accused criminals due to the first hand nature of the eye witnesses’ observations. There are however many faults within this system of identification. Characteristics of the crime is the first issue that will be discussed in this paper, and the flaws that have been identified. The second issue to be discussed will be the stress impact and the inability to correctly identify the accused in a violent or weapon focused crime. The third issue to be discussed is inter racial identification and the problems faced when this becomes a prominent issue. The fourth issue will be time lapse, meaning, the time between the crime and the eye witness making a statement and how the memory can be misconstrued in this time frame. To follow this will be the issue of how much trust jurors-who have no legal training-put on to the eye witness testimony, which may be faltered. This paper references the works of primarily Wells and Olsen (2003) and Rodin (1987) and Schmechel et al. (2006) it will be argued that eye witness testimony is not always accurate, due to many features; inter racial identification, characteristics of the crime, response latency, and line up procedures therefore this paper will confirm that eyewitness testimonies should not be utilised in the criminal ju...
Abstract; This paper explors the effects DNA fingerprinting has had on the trial courts and legal institutions. Judge Joseph Harris states that it is the "single greatest advance in the search for truth since the advent of the cross examination (Gest, 1988)." And I tend to agree with Judge Joseph's assertion, but with the invention and implementation of DNA profiling and technology has come numerous problems. This paper will explore: how DNA evidence was introduced into the trial courts, the effects of DNA evidence on the jury system and the future of DNA evidence in the trial courts.
Such devastating mistakes by eyewitnesses are not rare, according to a report by the Innocence Project, an organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. The Innocence Project uses DNA testing to exonerate those wrongfully convicted of crimes. Since the 1990s, when DNA testing was first introduced, Innocence Project researchers have reported that, “Seventy three percent of the two hundred thirty nine convictions overturned through DNA testing were based on eyewitness testimony” (Loftus xi). One third of these overturned cases rested on the testimony of two or more mistaken eyewitnesses. How could so many eyewitnesses be wrong? This paper will identify a theoretical framework that views eyewitness testimony ...
“In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same”.(Albert Einstein).Many people have different points of view of what is justice of what happens in the courtroom. Opinions have been heard of whether or not DNA evidence should be admissible in murder trials. Not only have people try to introduce this kind of evidence in their case, but some have been trying to avoid of DNA evidence in their case. Like any important matter they all have their own pros and cons to conclude whether or not it’s worth presenting to a courtroom full of juries. It takes hard workers to give background information
Eyewitness misidentification is the leading cause of wrongful conviction. It played a role in 75% of convictions that have been overturned since 1989 based on DNA evidence. Thousands of studies have confirmed that eyewitness testimony is shockingly inaccurate, with a mistaken identification rate of roughly 40%. This has led several courts to lament that eyewitness testimony is “hopelessly unreliable.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has even concluded that “mistaken eyewitness identifications are responsible for more wrongful convictions than all other causes
Therefore, the criminal justice system relies on other nonscientific means that are not accepted or clear. Many of forensic methods have implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or anything to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011). Defense experts are required to help the defense attorneys defend and breakdown all of the doubts in the prosecutors scientific findings in criminal cases. Scientific information is integral in a criminal prosecution, and a defense attorney needs to have an expert to assist he/she in discrediting the prosecution (Giannelli,
Fradella, H.F. (2006) Why judges should admit expert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. Federal Courts Law Review. Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2006/fedctslrev3.pdf
Researcher Richard A. Wise and his colleagues focused on finding out how prosecutors and defense attorneys felt and treated eyewitness testimonies. They found that defense attorneys are more likely to question an eyewitness’s credibility than prosecutors (Wise, et al. 1278). They also found that prosecutors knew less about eyewitness testimonies than defense attorneys (Wise, et al. 1277). This study suggests that attorneys should be informed about the risk of eyewitness testimonies being false or fallible (Wise, et al. 1280). In contrast to the study discussed before, a study conducted by researchers Tim Valentine and Katie Maras looked at the effects of cross examining evidence between eyewitnesses instead of focusing on prosecutors and defense attorneys. They conducted an experiment in which the participants had to watch an event and then talk about it with other people who saw the same event (Valentine and Maras 556). They found that the act cross examining what they all saw led to people coming up with false testimonies with many inaccuracies (Valentine and Maras 557). Both of these studies differ in that the first study focused on defense attorneys and prosecutors while the second study discussed on the eyewitnesses themselves. Even though they focused on analyzing two different demographics, they both
DNA in forensic science has been around for a long time. DNA has had help in solving almost every crime committed. There have been a lot of crimes where people are raped or murdered and the person who did it runs free. Scientists can collect the littlest item they see at the scene, such as a cigarette butt or coffee cup and check it for DNA. People have spent years in jail for a crime they didn’t commit till DNA testing came into effect. People are getting out of jail after 20 years for a crime they didn’t commit, cause of the DNA testing. DNA has helped medical researchers develop vaccines for disease causing microbe. DNA has become a standard tool of forensics in many murders and rapes.
I personally feel that this is a much more reliable and accurate than relying on the testimony of witnesses. I believe through the use of science we as a society can now make sure that the guilty are caught and punished while the innocent are protected from wrongful prosecution. However the eyewitness should not be completely left out of the case against the possible offender. After it is determined through scientific evidence, in this case DNA, that the physically involved in the crime then witnesses can be brought in to give testimony that the offender was present at the crime scene or the victim can be sure that the accused was truly the one involved in the actual crime.
The death row not only consists of murderers, but it could also include a large number of innocent people whose lives are at risk. In the past 35 years, over 130 people have been taken out of the death row because of new evidence proving their innocence. This shows that the death penalty process is very faulty and contains many errors when it comes to convicting a person of a crime. There was an average of three exonerations per year from 1973 to 1999 which soon rose to an average of five per year between 2000 and 2007 ( Cary, Mary Kate). The ...
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 76 Md. App. 23 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland July 8, 1988).
The authors constantly remind the reader that there is nothing inevitable about the innocence frame that now shuts out alternative interpretations. The innocence frame packs a wallop, but a list of murderers and their victims would dwarf the roster of the unjustly convicted. For now, however, the interlocking features of the innocence frame- the regular discovery of mistaken convictions, the rise of DNA testing, the proliferation of media stories filtered through the new frame, dramatic revelations of criminal shortcuts taken by police or crime labs, the spread of innocence projects- all fit together and dominate the debate. The cascade of innocence stories has begun to reshape public opinion (support for the death penalty has dropped dramatically) and public policy (fewer death sentences and executions). (Baumgartner, De Boef, & Boydstun,