Christopher Wallace or otherwise known as B. I. G died on March 9th, 1997. Mr. Wallace was murdered, the trial was covered by every media outlet available at the time. There were several suspects and possible motives, but the case was never solved. According to FBI reports, the suspect list consisted of Orlando Anderson, a member of the Crips gang, Marion “Suge” Knight, CEO of Death Row Records, David Mack, an obsessive fan, along with several members of the Los Angeles Police Department (FBI, n.d.).
Each suspect would be initially brought in and questioned individually. Once the information is gathered from the suspects, the process of verifying alibi’s and statements would begin. This process would also include any statements from witness from the crime scene. The next step would be reducing the suspect list based on the
…show more content…
In being prepared the council would need to ask direct question. “Where you there at this date and time?” “Did you witness Mr. Wallace being shot?” “Did you see the shooter?” “What kind of vehicle was the shooter driving?” These questions are direct, and leaves no room for embellishing. Both councils would need to have a plan and be prepared for the cross examination prior to the trial.
After a period of time the trial would come to an end. At the end of the court proceedings both sides of the court would give closing statements. These statements would be used to remind the jury of the evidence produced throughout the duration of the trail. These statements are also opportunity for hypothetical scenarios, and campaign to the jurors why they should decide in favor of their client.
In this particular case the closing arguments would include information about the feuding rappers (Biggie and Tupac), the animosity between the record labels and the artist, and David Mack the LAPD officer. After the closing statements, it is the jury’s time to deliberate and come to a
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
Trial began in the spring of 1982 that included all of the evidence, testimony from Bianchi which was not consistent and 400 witnesses. In October 1983 the jury began deliberating and soon after Angelo Buono was convicted for the first murder. By January 1984, Buono was sentenced to Life with out parole, letting his suffer in Jail. . Kenneth Bianchi received a life sentence as well, and it currently serving his time at the Walla Walla State Penitentiary. On September 21, 2002 Angelo Buono died of a heart attack, alone in his jail cell putting an end to one of the most publicized killing spree in Los
One of the most intense group task experiences in the United States is that of serving on the jury of a death penalty case. This forces a group of complete strangers to come together and determine the fate of another’s human beings life. The court case of the State of Ohio v Mark Ducic, was of no exception. Ducic a 47 year old drug addict white male, was accused of committing a double homicide. In accordance with Ohio state law, murdering more than one individual is considered a mass murder and therefore the accused is subject to the possibility of the death penalty. Ducic’s victims included Barbara Davis, his domestic partner and drug addict, as well as a drug user that Ducic was an acquaintance with. The death of Davis was at first believed to be due to an overdose, but police informants identified Ducic’s voice on a recording claiming that he killed her. The other victim, the drug addict, was thought to be eliminated by Ducic for fear that he would inform the police that he killed Davis. Investigators believed that Ducic gave both victims a deathly amount of drugs that would make it appear as though they both simply overdosed. Ducic was found guilty on both occasions, yet a second trial in regards to his sentencing had to occur and another hearing had to be conducted on whether or not to remove the death penalty.
They seat the accused in between the two fronts. bleachers. The sand is a sand. They begin the trail, calling anybody that has seen you do suspicious behavior. A few People come up and make various claims, one includes the accused’s wealthy, greedy neighbor.
Biggie was murdered “[o]n March 9, 1997, Christopher Wallace, a.k.a. The Notorious B.I.G. was shot to death while sitting in a Chevy Suburban outside of a hip-hop industry party in Los Angeles”(Kenner). Upon completion of the report, it is clear that an examination of the unresolved murder is necessary. That was the thought process of any big fan of Tupac Shakur. Even though still to this day people do not know who killed Tupac, what we do know is that there was no evidence that pointed directly at one of Biggie’s hitmen.
The following paper explores a homicide scene at a convenience store / gas station at 3 a.m. The material of the investigation is represented with a number of visible evidence, the dead body with an apparent gunshot wound in the chest and the testimony of the first officer at the scene. The paper is divided into four parts, including the general overview (introduction), latent impression processing, people’s involvement investigation procedure and evidence package for the further fingerprint analysis. The crime scene investigation protocol used in this paper includes interview, examination, photographing, sketching and processing itself (Castleman, 2000: 23). Observing the homicide scene we omit the analysis of the preliminary procedures as security of the scene, integrity precautions, photographing and sketching.
Additionally, George Anthony was questioned as to whether or not he knew Casey Anthony was pregnant, and if he knew who the father was. Lastly, George Anthony was asked if he knew his daughter was working. Essentially, the defense team was using George Anthony to seek verification over a number of claims Casey Anthony had made, such as how she was working at Orlando’s theme park. Another portion of a trial is the closing arguments, when both the prosecutor and the defense basically summarize their entire argument, and plead for the jury to make the right decision. CNN wrote a lengthy article about the closing arguments of the Casey Anthony trial, as follows.
The O.J. Simpson trial, as it became known, opened on January 24, 1995 and concluded October 3 the same year. Over the span of the trial, the prosecution team presented 72 witnesses including friends and family of Nicole, friends of O.J., and a 9-1-1 dispatcher. Given the trial’s notable and well-known defendant, those involved in the trial gained lifetime fame. To this day I can still recall the names Judge Lance Ito, Marcia Clark (Deputy District Attorney), and Simpson’s defense counsel, “The Dream Team,” which consisted of a number of high-profile attorneys, most notably Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. I chose this case because it left a lasting impression in my memory, as well as a lasting impression in our nation’s memory. There have been many high-profile cases over the years, but this case was not predicted to end the way it di...
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
Both the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney have an opportunity to make opening statements, introduce witnesses and evidence in favor of their case, cross-examine witnesses and offer closing arguments. During the deliberation phase of the case, the jury decides whether the prosecution has met the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds joe not guilty, you are free to go and not subject to further prosecution based on the same offenses.
I wanted to look at the investigative and criminal procedures following the arrest of an alleged criminal and the powerful effects via testimonies and evidence (or lack thereof) it can have on a case.There is an importance of the courts in regards to crime that can’t be over looked. The primary function of the criminal justice system is to uphold the established laws, which define what we understand as deviant in this society.
Denise Moore 's criminal report starts the investigation. A police investigation of a crime is the entryway into the criminal justice system, once Denise Moore reported the crime, Detective Riley and Detective Clay conducted a photo lineup, an investigative tool used when the suspect is unknown and not in custody, to identify the suspect (Burns, 194).
“Witness for the Prosecution” superbly demonstrated a realist view of the operating procedures in a courtroom. The actors within the courtroom were easy to identify, and the steps transitioned smoothly from the arrest to the reading of the verdict. The murder trial of Leonard Vole provided realistic insight into how laws on the books are used in courtroom proceedings. With the inferior elements noted, the superior element of the court system in “Witness for the Prosecution” was the use of the adversary system. Both sides of the adversary system were flawlessly protrayed when the prosecution and defense squared off in the courtroom.
First responders play a crucial role in the establishment of a crime scene. Upon arriving at the scene, the first responders have checked for living victims and have rendered aid. It’s important to create a perimeter around the crime scene (this can be altered if additional evidence is found outside the initial crime scene). Only emergency personnel should enter and exit from the central entry point to control contamination, by creating an exit point; it helps avoid any excessive traffic through the crime scene. By secure the scene to ensure that no evidence is misplaced or damaged, or otherwise compromised. Do a cursory check of the crime scene to obtain any transient evidence and secure any weapons found at the scene (in this case it was already at the scene with the suspect). Crime scene analysts and investigators communicate with first responders and are quickly briefed on the situation, and now a more thorough search can be conducted.
For the first mock trial held in class, the case of the stolen lunch, I did not have a large role. I chose to be a part of the jury, which I feel gave me an immense feeling of responsibility and really allowed me to deeply analyze the case as it was being presented. Within this case, Mary Ovechkin, the plaintiff, had claimed that her lunch had been stolen and ate by the defendant, Sammy Crosby. My first expectation of this case, before it had actually started, was that the defense and prosecution would each have time to present their cases. I expected both sides to question those who were involved, such as the witnesses, defendant, and plaintiff. Then I expected to have to come up with my own verdict to share with the rest of the jury based on the evidence presented. Based on my role, I expected to learn how the jury reaches their decisions.