Fact In 1992, Houston police officers found two homicide victims in a house at an unspecified time. The investigation of this homicide led them to defendant, Genovevo Salinas, where the police asked and the defendant agreed to accompany the police officers to the station where the defendant was questioned for about one hour. Police collected shotgun shells from the murder scene, which is the home of the two brothers that have been shot and killed. The defendant, without being detained and read his Miranda rights, voluntarily answered most of the police officer’s questions about the murder stated earlier. This interview lasted about one hour and both the officer and the defendant agreed it was a consensual encounter. He became very quite once the officer’s asked if under ballistics testing the casing, found at the crime scene, would match the shotgun the defendant owned. After this question the officer asked other questions and the defendant did answer the rest of the questions asked. Police also found a witness who said Salinas admitted to killing the victims. In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders, but could not be located. 15 years later, Salinas was finally captured. The first trial ended in a mistrial. During the second trial the prosecutors used the silence the defendant had at this time, even over the objection of the defendant, as evidence of guilt in Texas state court. He was convicted, in both State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals. …show more content…
Decision
Anna Garcia is a thirty eight year old Hispanic women. She weighed 165 pounds and was 64 inches tall. She was married to Alex Garcia, but went through a nasty divorce. Anna has no children and one dog. A phone call came in at 9:45 AM on the hot morning of August 14th. Anna’s neighbor, Doug Greene let the police know he saw her walking her dog around 6:30AM yesterday morning, but heard her dog barking for the last two hours. Both the police and the EMT arrived at 9:56AM, and had to break the front door down. Upon entering the house, they found Anna lying face down in the entry hallway, a small pool of blood was by her head. The house was a comfortable 73 degrees fahrenheit. Around her there was evidence. There was vomit, blood spatters, blood on the table, and a pool of blood. As well as, a syringe, white pills, a cup with an unknown fingerprint on it, a muddy shoe print, and a
Carmen Rodriquez is a Human Service Professional whose main function is to equip her clients with the tools and services needed to manage the day to day life stressors. Carmen Rodriquez’s main motivation is to assist her clients in becoming self-sufficient. To do this she must overcome problems such as the bureaucracy of the social service system and the resistance of the clients to accept her advice. Carmen Rodriquez is a caring professional who respects the individuality of her clients.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
Read the posted case study about Benita Vasquez and discuss the following questions: 1. What are the clinical causes of death in the story? a. Senora Vasquez died because of uncontrolled diabetes, Infected wound and diffusing kidneys. With not well-controlled diabetes and acquiring an infected burn wound makes it harder for the patient to get treatment. Thus with the condition of the patient and her current social status, she is unable to afford the treatment and medications needed to alleviate her suffering.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
On October 13th I was fortunate enough to be able to interview Sandi Lopez. Lopez is from Grand Island, Nebraska and has also lived in Kansas for a few years. At first she was not quite sure on what to do with her career pathway. She wanted a job where she could be able to help others and her community. Lopez says that having many of her friends being police officers is what got her more into law enforcement. She says hanging out around her friends telling her stories about being officers made her really want to be a part of the law enforcement department. However, she says it was a very hard decision to make knowing the fact that she would have to work long hours and being with her family was very important to her. In the end, she decided
On the morning of December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their home in Houston Texas. Police recovered six shotgun shell casings at the home and their investigation led them to defendant Genovevo Salinas who agreed to hand over his weapon for ballistics testing and to go to the police station for questioning. The interview lasted for about one hour, and both parties agree it was noncustodial therefore he was not read his Miranda warning. Salinas answered most of the officer’s questions during the interview, but fell silent and his body tensed up when asked if the shotgun would match the shells recovered at the murder scene. After a few minutes of silence, the officer continued to ask more questions, which he did answer. Salinas did not testify at his own trial and, even with his objection, the prosecution used his silence in response to the officer’s question as evidence that he was guilty.
I observed the officer claim that when he questions the defendant, he felt as if he was off. The victim gives a full detail report to the officer, describing what the person looked like and everything. One of the officers had taken his picture, and sent one to the transit police, to see if it was the same person they were looking for. In the meantime, the woman officer was interrogating him about where he has been and of prescription medication that was discovered in his bag. However, the defendant lied about why his taking the medicine. I observed that the police mentioned the defendant was very yielding and being extremely corporative. The officer mentioned that he took him to the hospital for psych assessment being that he was acting odd, so they kept him because of strange behavior. I observed the officer mention that from there, they got a report that the defendant was the same person they were looking at in the pictures. It was at the hospital that they arrested the defendant.
It was later decided that even though Lujan’s Miranda rights were violated, it was a harmless error due to the fact that he confessed in court to the murders. “However, the state court reached this decision by failing to apply the Supreme Court 's holding in Harrison v. United States” (McMahon, 2013). The case finally ended when the Ninth Circuit applied what was taken from Douglas v. Jacquez and modified the conviction. “The district court may provide the state court with the option to modify the conviction, but the district court erred in concluding second-degree murder was the appropriate modification” (McMahon, 2013). The case of Lujan v. Garcia was one where a man’s Miranda rights were violated due to an inadequate reading of the warnings which changed the outcome of the case. In conclusion, Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) case is a prominent case in history that resulted in rights that are still used today. The Miranda rights are a part of the core of the current United States criminal justice system. They have a huge influence on the way police officers and other law enforcement workers operate with regards to custodies and interrogations. Despite the Miranda rights being so important, there are still times in which someone’s Miranda rights can be violated such as during the Lujan v. Garcia case. A violation of the Miranda rights can change the outcome of a court case. The rights given during the Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) as a result of the case are what has had a great influence on the criminal justice system
The Escobedo V. Illinois case had captured the grand stage in 1966 for, a man named Danny Escobedo was denied his rights to obtain a lawyer during questioning by the Chicago Police Department. Escobedo was convicted for shooting and was taken to the police department for questioning. Escobedo had made numerous attempts trying to request a lawyer, but was not provided one violating his Sixth Amendment Rights: “The right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in their defense.” Unfortunately, Escobedo had confessed to the murdering which also violated the Fifth Amendment of “self-incrimination” being forced a confes...
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
The first evidence is the judge and jury ignored the physical evidence that both men weren’t in area when the crime happen, and their guns were not the same caliber there were a .38 while the gun reported was a .32. The police also had fingerprints from the buick the was used in the South Braintree crime. But the fingerprints didn’t match and the police instead questioned them on their religion, political beliefs and associates instead of the crime. The prosecutors used witness but the witness accounts made no sense. Meaning it didn’t match the descriptions of the men and the their stories weren’t the same and had loops hole. One witness said she saw the shooting from 60 feet away and said one of the men which she said was Sacco had big hands but he had small hands. Another said they saw Sacco kill Berardelli (one of the men who was killed in South Braintree), but the defense question and she said she hidden under workbench when the shots fired and didn’t see the men. The third witness said she talked to a man under a car fixing it as Sacco but her companion said she didn’t talk or saw him. Instead it was a pale sick young man. The day of the crime Sacco was getting a passport. A official confirmed Sacco was their getting a passport but the picture he had was too big. Other witnesses said they saw Vanzetti selling fish in Boston and some even bought some. The last piece of evidence is that the prosecutors tried to convicted them using consciousness of guilt. It is when you are guilty of a crime because you are lying about your actions because you are guilty. They lied and said they didn’t know Mike Boda. They did this because they wanted a car to transport their anarchist pamphlets to a safe place. They wanted to do this because the police could arrest anyone with these pamphlets and the people would be
Walsh, James, and Dan Browning. "Presumed Guilty Until Proved Innocent." Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). 23 Jul 2000: A1+. SIRS Issues Researcher.
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...