In 1986, Plaintiff Bennie Starks was convicted of battery and rape. Following a jury trial, Starks was sent to prison, where he was detained for 20 years. After DNA evidence revealed that he had been wrongfully convicted, the State of Illinois dismissed the charges against him. Starks then filed a civil lawsuit for malicious prosecution against law enforcement officers, as well as two dentists who had testified at his criminal trial. Specifically, Starks argued: (1) that the bite mark analysis the odontologists presented at his trial was so far outside the norms of bite-mark comparison that it violated his right to due process, and (2) that their insistence to law enforcement and the prosecution that there was a conclusive match between Starks’s teeth and the bite mark left on the victim amounted to malicious prosecution. In response, the odontologists moved for summary judgment and argued that they did not engage in malicious prosecution because they had neither initiated nor pursued Starks’ conviction. …show more content…
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The pertinent facts of this case are as follows: On January 18, 1986, City of Waukegan police responded to an apartment complex where a woman claimed she had been assaulted and raped.
The victim later identified Starks as her attacker. A warrant was obtained for Starks’ arrest, and police hired Dr. Russell Schneider and Dr. Carl Hagstrom, both of whom were hired as forensic dental consultants, to examine bite marks that the attacker had left on the victim’s shoulder. Drs. Schneider and Hagstrom took photos and impressions of Starks's teeth, which they used in their bite mark analysis. Both experts co-authored reports which were used in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, and both testified at trial. The dentists testified that, based on their analysis of the bite marks and unusual pattern of Starks’s dentition, there was a “definite match” between Starks’s teeth and the marks left on the victim. The jury convicted Starks, and DNA evidence later exonerated
him. The crux of Starks’s civil case against the two forensic odontologists was that their joint opinion at his criminal trial was filled with so many errors that it violated his due process rights. According to David Senn, the forensic odontologist hired by Starks, the two experts had exaggerated their conclusions, and had relied on a blurry photograph that could not have allowed for any conclusive match between Starks’ teeth pattern and the bite mark. In its opinion, the court discussed problems with bite mark analysis, including the fact that it is not validated by scientific data. Furthermore, studies have indicated that bite mark comparisons for marks left on human skin are particularly problematic due to changes that occur in the skin when a person is injured. The court said that even though Drs. Schneider and Hagstrom may have presented inaccurate opinions, their actions did not amount to a due process violation unless they deliberately falsified their opinions. Because Starks had an opportunity to cross-examine the odontologists at his trial, and had not produced evidence of any deliberate falsification, there had been no violation of Starks’s rights. In support of his malicious prosecution claim, Starks argued that the odontologists had actively prosecuted him by leading law enforcement and the State to believe that Starks was definitely the person who left the bite marks on the victim. The odontologists maintained that they had not had any active role in Starks’ arrest or prosecution. The court emphasized that under Illinois law, a person does not commit malicious prosecution unless he encourages the prosecution of someone with knowledge that there is no probable cause to believe he is guilty. Finding no such knowledge on the part of odontologists, the court granted their motion for summary judgment.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
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
In 2000, Delwin Foxworth was beaten and set on fire outside of his North Chicago home. Foxworth survived the attack but died two years later in a nursing home. Marvin Williford was arrested and convicted for the murder in 2004 and was given an 80 year life sentence in prison. Williford’s defense attorney David Owens is requesting a retrial for the case because of the absence of Williford’s DNA profile in the DNA samples that were taken from the crime scene. Additionally Owens makes the argument that the eye witness testimony of a woman who was present during the attack was unreliable. The woman states that she clearly saw Williford and two other assailants commit the crime, but Owens and Geoffrey Loftus, a professor of psychology at the University
The suspect had a chip tooth and Antonio had A gap that was really the only reason he got convicted. There three other suspects didn’t even get close to how Antonio Beaver had allot of similarity’s like the victim that did that crime. The best way to know if the suspect did the crime is doing allot of deep research instead of just going off a shecht artist.
The pliers were not found alongside the body or in the area where the bodies were discovered. It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive, which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act.
As we learned this week, DNA databases are used by various governmental agencies for several different purposes. We all have seen new magazine shows such as, 20/20 or Dateline, that show the collection of DNA samples from suspects in a case that is compared to those collected at the scene of the crime. But what happens when the sample is an incomplete match, compromised, or contaminated? The answer is the wrongful conviction of innocent citizens. The case that I have decided to highlight, is the wrongful conviction of Herman Atkins. In 1986, Atkins was convicted of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of oral copulation, and robbery in the state of California. It was alleged that Herman entered a shoe store, and raped, beat, and robbed a
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Throughout the trial, there were multiple points in which Bibbins had false accusations thrown against him from the victim and the law enforcement of Baton Rouge. The victim clearly misidentifies her rapist and clearly is distraught while identifying, "The victim's initial description of the attacker was a man with long and curly hair, wearing jeans. Bibbins was wearing grey shorts and had short, cropped hair at the time" (Innocent Project). As with false accusations there were multiple occasions in which evidence proving Bibbins innocence were not present during the trial. Baton Rouge police had discarded evidence from the crime, "The allegations of evidence tampering gained credibility in 2003 when DNA testing unavailable at the time of Bibbins' trial excluded him as the girl's rapist" (Sherrer). Eventually Bibbins is able to use this information of evidence tampering to help strengthen his case against the city of Baton
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped at knife point in her apartment. She was able to escape and identify Ronald Cotton as her attacker. The detective conducting the lineup told Jennifer that she had done great, confirming to her that she had chosen the right suspect. Eleven years later, DNA evidence proved that the man Jennifer Identified, Ronald Cotton was innocent and wrongfully convicted. Instead, Bobby Poole was the real perpetrator. Sadly, there are many other cases of erroneous convictions. Picking cotton is a must read for anybody because it educates readers about shortcomings of eyewitness identification, the police investigative process and the court system.
Two detectives were assigned to the case: Harry Hanson and Finis Brown. [2] When they and the police arrived at the crime scene, it was already swarming with people, gawkers and reporters. The entire situation was out of hand and crowded, everyone trampling all over any hopes for good evidence. [2] One thing they did report finding was a nearby cement block with watery blood on it, tire tracks and a heel print on the ground. There was dew under the body so they knew it had been set there just after 2 a.m. when temperatures dropped to 38 degrees.
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
The Death Penalty Should Be Enacted In Illinois Due to the recent releases of newly exonerated Death Row inmates, individuals and organizations are calling for a moratorium- a cooling off period for state executions. The cases of just a few inmates makes it apparent that this would be a necessary step to save innocent lives. After 17 years in prison, Illinois Death Row inmate Anthony Porter was released from jail after a judge threw out his murder conviction following the introduction of new evidence. This reversal of fortune came just two days before Porter was to be executed. As reported in USA Today, Porter's release was the result of investigative research as conducted by a Northwestern University professor and students. The evidence gathered suggested that Porter had been wrongly convicted. Were these new revelations and the subsequent release of Porter a lucky break or a freak occurrence? Not likely, reports DeWayne Wickham, also of USA Today. He points out that since the reinstatement of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, of those sentenced to death, 490 people have been executed while 76 have been freed from Death Row. This calculates into one innocent person being released from Death Row for every six individuals that were executed. This figure correlates with the 1996 U.S. Department of Justice report that indicates that over a 7-year period, beginning in 1989, when DNA evidence in various cases was tested, 26% of primary suspects were exonerated. This has led some to conclude that a similar percentage of inmates presently serving time behind bars may have been wrongly convicted prior to the advent o...
On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues so that the issues do not repeat themselves in the future from the lack of knowledge and from learning from the mistakes of previous cases such as this one.