Attorneys Office Vs Osborne (2009)
In March 1944, William Osborne was convicted of kidnapping, assault, and sexual assault in the Alaska State court. He had beat and raped a prostitute.The prostitute had been beaten with an axe handle and took a bullet to the head and was left in an Alaskan snowbank according to reports. At the scene there was a condom found and was used against him in court. They tested the evidence with a method called DQ Alpha, back then this was a DNA testing method but was really an inexact method of DNA testing. The court had found him guilty and was sentenced to 26 years. Years after Osborne's conviction he had requested access to the DNA evidence so it can be retested using a better method that had been developed and he stated that he would pay out of his pocket to pay the cost of the testing,
…show more content…
On the dissenting opinion there was Justice John Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and David Souter that had argues with the majority. They had found Osborne making full use of available state procedures to his position securing access to evidence for DNA testing. Also argued that Alaska had facially reasonable conditions guaranteeing access to the evidence, but the way it went to applying to them it supposedly added up to procedural being unfair, at the end they agreed that convicts had no right access DNA evidence held by states. In my opinion I believe that justice was not served but then again it was because they should've let him test the evidence because the development of DNA testing we have now is way more accurate than the one they had back then that way they can find out the truth if he was the one that did it. He should've had a second chance to prove his innocence because I think that everyone deserves a second chance. I think he had great arguments and points, but then again I believe that justice was served because he sexually assaulted the prostitute and that is not right to do at any point. So
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
According to the Innocence Project (2006), “On September 17, 2001, Chad wrote the Innocence Project in New York, which, in 2003, enlisted pro bono counsel from Holland & Knight to file a motion for DNA testing on Tina’s fingernail scrapings.” The state had tested the DNA that was under Tina’s nail from the first case but at that time it was inadequate and could not be tested. It was not until now that we have the technology capable enough to test it. In June 2004, the test came back negative to matching both Jeremey and Chain Heins but did come from an unknown male. The state argued that it was not enough to overturn the conviction so Chad’s attorney asked the state to do some further testing and to compare the DNA from under the fingernails to the hairs that was found on Tina’s body. It was in 2005 that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that there was a match between the DNA under Tina’s nail and the pubic hair. According to LaForgia (2006), “this particular type of DNA, the report stated, was found in only about 8 percent of Caucasian American men.” During this process there was a new piece of evidence that Chad’s attorney had learned about during the appeals process, a fingerprint. There were some accusations that the prosecutors never disclosed this information about this third fingerprint and if they did it was too late. The jurors did not even know about this fingerprint and if they did this could have changed the whole case. This fingerprint was found on several objects that included the smoke detector, a piece of glass, and the bathroom sink. It was soon discovered that this fingerprint matched with the DNA found on the bedsheets that Tina was on. This was finally enough evidence to help Chad Heins become exonerated in
Separate Opinions: in the dissenting opinion, the minority argued that the ruling of the majority opens up a Pandora’s Box. Arguing that the ruling would encourage offenders to flee and, consequently, put more innocent bystanders at risk. In addition to this separate opinion by the dissent, several other key arguments by the dissent are bulleted
The case was unfair in my opinion because, the state assumed Peterson murdered Kathleen after his fourth wife disappeared. In the initial autopsy of Kathleen, it was found that there was no murder and Kathleen death was accidental drowning. Furthermore, Kathleen was exhumed after three years of her death which also contends the states were only basing their hunch’s off the disappearance of Stacy. To add to the unfairness of the trial, when The defendant's motion asked the court to clarify whether it ruled under the common law doctrine when the courts ruled that some of the hearsay could be admissible, during a hearing held the same day, the court stated, “I didn't even get to that. There was no request as to any of the others. I ruled strictly pursuant there was a hearing pursuant to the statute.” This entire statement from the court shows the motion to consider was not affectively
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
In my opinion, I actually agree with the court decision because yes although he did committed a crime, to be sentenced for life at young age is pretty harsh. I do agree that he should pay for his consequences but not to that extreme. They should honestly come up with a plan that suits his crime. Plus he has the right of the 8th Amendment, to not condone a cruel punishment if it does not suit the crime in which he committed.
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
Abington v. Schempp was an important case regarding the establishment of religion in American schools. Until the late twentieth century, most children were sent to schools which had some sort of religious instruction in their day. The schools taught the morals, values, and beliefs of Christianity in addition to their everyday curriculum. However, as some people began to drift away from Christianity, parents believed this was not fair to the kids and justifiable by the government. They thought public schools should not be affiliated with religion to ensure the freedom of all of the families who send students there. Such is the situation with the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp.
This case started on July 25, 1984, with the death of a nine year old girl by the name of Dawn Hamilton. The story plays out as follows: Dawn approached two boys and an adult male that were fishing at a pond in a wooded area near Golden Ring Mall in eastern Baltimore, Maryland. Dawn asked the boys to help her find her cousin, they declined the adult male however agreed to help her look. This was the last time anyone saw Hamilton alive. Hamilton’s body was found to have been raped, strangled and beaten with a rock. The police collected a boot print at the scene and DNA that was found in Hamilton’s underwear. The police also relied on the witness testimonies and line-ups, which in this case was the photo array. With the five eye witness testimonies and a tip the believed to be suspect was found. Kirk Noble Bloodsworth a prior U.S. Marine with no prior criminal record was taken into custody and charged with intentional first degree murder, sexual assault and rape. Bloodsworth was basically convicted on the eye witness testimonies. The state requested the death penalty. Bloodsworth was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. (BLOODSWORTH v. STATE, 1988)
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.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
The use of DNA evidence to convict or exonerate defendants in criminal cases has become increasingly common in recent years, as presented in the cases of the four men in Frontline. This is due to DNA’s ability to identify individuals with precise accuracy. In addition, DNA technology has been improved immensely and has changed the way criminal justice professionals investigate and prosecute crimes. The importance of DNA’s role in the criminal justice system is predominantly seen in criminal trials.
The collection of DNA in an investigation is used most often to determine who the perpetrator(s) might be in a crime. There has been a rapid growth since its inception and legal and ethical issues have arisen. In the Double –Helix Double-Edged ...
Singer, Julie A. "The Impact Of Dna And Other Technology On The Criminal Justice System: Improvements And Complications."Albany Law Journal Of Science & Technology 17.(2007): 87. LexisNexis Academic: Law Reviews. Web. 10 Mar. 2014.
He was tried before a Jury for capital murder. The jury was instructed that if they could not convict on capital murder, they should them discuss first degree murder, after that, they could deliberate about manslaughter, then negligent homicide, and finally they could acquit. After several hours, the forewoman told the judge that the jury might not be able reach a verdict. She said that they had unanimously decided against capital and first degree murder, but were stuck 9-3 on on the charge of manslaughter. After a little more deliberation, the judge dismissed the jury and declared a mistrial. At this point, everyone agreed that Blueford could be retried for manslaughter and negligent homicide, but Blueford said that it would be a violation of his 5th amendment rights to not be charged with the same crime twice, since the jury had unanimously decide that he was innocent of capital murder and first degree murder. The opposing argument was that since the jury had been dismissed before issuing an official verdict, Blueford had not technically been acquitted, and therefore could be tried again on all the charges. The supreme court ruled 6-3 in favor of the prosecution. The majority, made up of Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Bryer, and Alito, agreed with the prosecution, saying that the forepersons statement was not an official verdict, and that because the deliberations carried on after the statement