Steve Harmon is guilty of felony murder because he participated and had knowledge about a crime that ended up in the death of an innocent citizen. The judge stated the if you believe that Steve harmon took part in the crime than you must return a verdict of guilty. I believe that Steve went into the drugstore on that day for the purpose of being a lookout. Some of Steve’s journal entry’s lead to him feeling guilty or like a “monster”. Participants of the crime define or describe Steve as being the lookout. During Osvaldo’s testimony he identifies Steve Harmon. On page 100 Osvaldo says “He said that him and James KIng were going to go into the store and do that thing. Steve was going to be the look out.” In this quote Osvaldo is identifying …show more content…
Steve as the “lookout” out for the getover. On page 177 when petrocelli asks “ Can you tell me as much as you can about the plan and about what actually happened?” BoBo responds saying “ We went over to the place and sat down on a car outside. Then we got the sign from him-.” Petrocelli then responds with “Let the record show that Mr.Evans is pointing Towards Mr.Harmon.”In this conversation BoBo is identifying Harmon as the person they got the sign from. Two people who are admittedly involved in the crime have now identified Steve Harmon as taking some part in this crime specifically as the lookout. On page 264 the judge says “ …..That Mr.Harmon went into the store with the purpose of…..without regard to who actually pulled the trigger.” “THen you must return a verdict of guilty.” With two participants of this crime identifying Steve Harmon as the lookout what would lead you to believe that he is innocent in the eyes of the law. Steve’s journal entry’s are like a passage into his thinking and his mind.
Some of his journal entries lead to the idea that he feels guilty for something. Could he feel guilty for committing a crime that turned into a murder? ON page 61 Steve writes “He said when he gets out, he will have the word monster tattooed on his forehead. I feel like I already have it tattooed on mine.” Why would Steve feel like a monster if he knew he was not guilty for any crime? just because the prosecutor said it? If Steve was truly innocent he would not feel like a “monster”. On page 62 Steve says “In a way he was right, at least about me. I want to look like a good person. I want to feel like I’m a good person because i believe I am. But being here with these guys makes it hard to think about yourself as being different.” In this quote Steve is stating that he feels like all the other “criminals”. If he was truly innocent wouldn’t it be easy for him to realize that he is truly a good person and different from all the other people around him? Steve is lying to himself about how he is innocent and his journal entries clearly show this. Steve Harmon is truly guilty of Felony murder. He shows this in his journal entries. Other admitted participants also show this.In the eyes of the law Steve is giulty because he agreed to go into the store on that
day.
I personally favor the verdict to acquit Leroy Reed because I believe that even though he broke the law, he should not be charged with the crime of possessing a gun. The most convincing evidence was the expert witness who stated that Reed had a 2nd grade level of intelligence. When Leroy Reed was testifying, he was asked if he was a convicted, and he answered no. He was then prompted to answer yes to seeing a parole officer. Reed was then asked again if he was a convicted felon and he said yes. Reed gave conflicting answers on being a convicted felon during his testimony, which shows his mental capabilities. EXPAND. Another piece of convincing evidence was after Reed showed the sheriff the sales receipt of the gun as a form of identification, Reed voluntarily turned the gun in. Reed knew he had the gun, but he willing turned it in. I believe Reed should not be convicted for willing turning in his gun when requested by the sheriff. The last piece of convincing evidence was that Reed was not carrying the gun on him. Reed was looking to become a private investigator, which led him to p...
Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia.
While researching this case I stumbled upon many others and I became aware of how many people have suffered from the injustice of being found guilty. While reading parts of the book “Real Justice: Fourteen and Sentenced to Death the Story of Steven Truscott” I learned that the police played a large role in why 14-year-old Truscott was found guilty of murder. The book showed that they forced witnesses to change their story to further “prove” Truscott’s guilt of the crime. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one
The prosecutors explained in their opening statement that Booth sold drugs to Gibson in December 2010, and was subsequently arrested for the transaction shortly after. After Booth was arrested for drug trafficking, he suspected Gibson was the confidential informant in the case against him. Booth planned to murder Gibson to prevent her...
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
They had an alibi witness, a gas receipt, a ticket on the day of the murder. A police officer who would not come unless the judge subpoena him and the judge of course refused and would not pay the $650 to summon him. There were also two jailhouse snitches who lied about their testimony. The police misconduct was used in how they charged these individuals originally and how they have been accused initially with robbery, which later turned into murder. The police created the story and intimidated an eye witness who refused to testify and threatened to charge her with the murder if she refused. The attorneys told a moving tale and Ron Keine and company ended up being convicted. This case was before DNA testing but what exonerated these individuals was the actual murder confessing to the crimes. The entire case seemed like a fluke and malicious attack on these people. A guy in Carolina, confessed to all charges and had an epiphany and told the police where the weapon was located and how everything happened and how he dragged the body. He had to fight to get the police to accept his confession because the police were acting as if they already had their
The book Murder in the Bayou: Who Killed the Women Known as the Jeff Davis 8?, written by independent journalist and private investigator Ethan Brown, tells the horrific true story of the bayou town of Jennings, Louisiana located in the heart of the Jefferson Davis parish. During the four year duration between 2005 and 2009, the town of Jennings was on edge after the discovery of the bodies of eight murdered women were found in the filthy canals and swamps. The victims became known as the “Jeff Davis 8.” For years, local law enforcement suspected a serial killer, and solely investigated the murders based on that theory alone. The victims were murdered in varying manors, but when alive they all shared many commonalities and were connected to
Murder at the Margin is a murder mystery involving various economic concepts. The story takes place in Cinnamon Bay Plantation on the Virgin Island of St. John. It is about Professor Henry Spearman, an economist from Harvard. Spearman organizes an investigation of his own using economic laws to solve the case.
On December 15, 2005, Minnie Smith was found dead in the home she shared with her husband, Marvin Smith. Smith was charged with first-degree murder for the death of his wife. At the end of the trial, the prosecution asked for and received an aiding-and-abetting instruction, which would allow the jury to convict Smith even if they found that he had not delivered the fatal blow. The jury convicted Smith but did not specify which theory of guilt they adopted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and rejected Smith’s argument that he had not been given adequate notice of the possibility of the aiding-and-abetting instruction. The California Supreme Court denied Smith’s petition for review.
A great deal of people viewed Simpson as a role model and someone they desired to be. Not for one second did any of those people even think about the thought of a man that “has it all” being on trial for murder. When most people view celebrities like Simpson, they imagine them with no flaws, but they only observe a glimpse of the person’s life. Some would say a majority of Americans prefer watching someone else’s life than pursuing their own, some Americans would even say that they have an infatuation with celebrities.
As if molded directly from the depths of nightmares, both fascinating and terrifying. Serial killers hide behind bland and normal existences. They are often able to escape being caught for years, decades and sometimes an eternity. These are America’s Serial Killers (America’s Serial Killers). “Even when some of them do get caught, we may not recognize what they are because they don’t [sic] match the distorted image we have of serial killers” (Brown). What is that distorted image? That killers live among everyday life, they are the ones who creep into someone’s life unknowingly to torture and kill them. The serial killers that are in the movies, Norman Bates, Michael Myers, and the evil master mind of SAW, these characters are just that characters. They have been made up as exaggerated fictional characters from the Hollywood imagination.
As the defense has so diligently pointed out, it is indeed a sad day in the history of our judicial system when an innocent woman is sent to her death for a crime that she did not commit. I, for one, am not planning on having that momentous occasion take place today, and this is for one simple reason: Justine is guilty. While the defense has done nothing but parade Justine’s friends in front of you saying how much of a “nice person” she is, I, the prosecution, have presented you with cold, hard facts, all of which point to the guilt of the defendant.
The truth can sometimes depend on the circumstance and the person who states it. When confronted with conflicting accounts or questionable details, a judge within the court of law must decide the sentence of an individual with these obstacles in place. In this case, the defendant Dannie McGrew has been charged with the murder of Barney Quill, but claims that it was self-defense. The following contains a thorough explanation as to how the judge decided upon the verdict of acquittal.
...y. With Matt killing Stout before he could sit trial he saved the court time and effort of either convicting him of his crime or looking like imbeciles by letting a murderer off the hook. Matt did what any father would do to avenge his son and should not be charged with any crime for avenging his youngest son's death.
The first crime that I would charge from Chapter 940 is First-Degree Intentional Homicide. S. 940.01 (1)(a) states that whoever intentionally causes death to another human being is guilty of a Class A felony. In this case, Alonzo shot and killed Roger. Before he shoots him, Alonzo says, “Yeah, if you wanna get shit done, you gotta get it done yourself.” Then he shoots Roger. Then afterward he made up a conspiracy with the others who were present, to cover it up. Under s. 939.50 (3)(a), a Class A felony is life imprisonment. I would then charge Conspiracy under s. 939.31. which states that whoever, with intent that a crime be committed, agrees or combines with another for the purpose of committing that crime may, if one or more of the parties to the conspiracy does an act to effect its object, the actor is guilty of a Class B felony. This all applies because Jeff gets shot, to make it look like Roger shot him, and then blamed Jake for shooting Roger. And they all consented to go with it. Under s. 939.50 (3)(b), a Class B felony is imprisonment not to exceed 60 years.