CASE NAME: Archer vs New Columbia Type of Defense: I plan to use the defense that there was no crime committed in this case. This requires some proof that there was no way that the defendent could have committed the crime. The burden of proof that Archer did not commit the crime will have to move to the defense. Theory of the Case: This case is about an event that occurred during what is known as "Hell Night" at the university. The Gamma coed fraternity was doing their final tasks for their pledges. These tasks are often harmless tasks that are described as something more dangerous in order to scare the pledges. As part of these tasks, Milan Jackson was told to "raise the gamma flag." The intention was for Milan to hang a flag on the door of the fraternity house. However, before anybody could explain to her what her task entailed, she unblindfolded herself, ran up to the university's clock tower, and fell off. While she fell off, Chris Archer was attempted to grab Milan to stop her from falling before it was too late. Chris Archer …show more content…
was not a bad person, as showed by her work at the local battered women's shelter and the elementary schools in the area along side other Gamma members. Witness List: Chris Archer will talk about their experiences with Milan Jackson and Pat. They will talk about how the Gamma fratiernity had stopped hazing their members for quite some time because of the dangerous implications it has. Archer will explain that she did not push Milan off of the building, but was rather trying to save her after some irrational thinking cause Milan to climb to the top of the building and eventually fall to her death. The purpose of Mr/Mrs Archer going onto the stand will be to prove the character of the defendant, in this case, themselves, and to give another recolection of the evenings occurances. Dean Jesse Thomas will be called to the stand to help establish the character of Chris Archer as a goodhearted and nice person in order to leave doubt in how the prosecution makes Archer out to be. He will talk about Archer, along with several other Gamma members, does great work in the community and how the Gamma fraternity has been very good about not hazing. He will also bring into doubt Pat's statement due to the fact that he/she later recanted her statement to the police. He will mention how he believed Milan was a very disturbed individual. He will discuss how he believed she never would have lived up to her aunt's, a former Gamm presidents, potential and how that could have seriously impacted her. The Dean will ultimately disprove a lot of the things that the prosecution will want to bring up. Dr. Jordan Mitchell will discuss that while Gamma used to be known for dangerous hazing, that it has stopped it's ways since then and that there has been no occurance of such an act since 1978. Mitchell will bring up how Milan's death is very similar to the suicide of her aunt, the former president of Gamma. He will discuss how Tanya had also jumped off of a building to commit suicide after she was being questioned about the death of a pledge as a result of hazing. He will discuss how the only witness to the death of Tanya was her niece Milan. He will also help establish the character of Chris Archer as someone who is very kind and courtious. Prosecution: I believe the prosecution will attempt to make it seem as though Chris Archer was a very bad person.
They will try to create a narrative that Chris Archer intended to kill Milan Jackson in her task and that pushing her off of the ledge was the final straw. However, none of their witnesses were close enough to hear or see what was really going on. Archer states that they attempted to grab the shoulder of Milan to save her, while the prosecution's witnesses state that Milan was pushed from the shoulder. This part matches up and since they weren't close enough to know what was happening, they have no way of knowing what could have happened. Also, Pat lied in their statement by saying they recieved no money for the interviews with Dr. Mitchell. Tyler Johnson will actually help further the narrative of the kindness and goodheartnedness of Archer by discussing how they would have conversations for hours and be really open with each
other. The conclusion of this case will be that Chris Archer did not commit First-Degree Murder or Criminal Hazing
Episode 8 begins Koenig interviewing Stella Armstrong, a juror in Adnan’s case who voted to convict Adnan of the murder. Stella immediately remembered Jay and said that she believed him, because he admitted to helping in the crime, so she thought that he would have to go to jail too… but he didn’t. Armstrong seemed taken back by that, she really thought he was gonna end up in trouble too. Armstrong then goes on to summarize the case, saying that Gutierrez, Adnan’s defense attorney, was trying to say that Jay murdered Hae, and that he was trying to frame Adnan. She talks about how persistent and aggressive Gutierrez is when questioning Jay, and how Jay stays calm and patient, answering every question politely. Koenig and her assistant Julie realize that if they can talk to Jay face to face, they might be able to get the information that they
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
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
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
The story began at the Olympic Torch Relay as it passed through Juneau, Alaska on January 24, 2002. Joseph Frederick was late for school went directly to meet up with his friends at the parade, where they held the infamous banner high for all to see. After school principal Deborah Morse noticed the banner, she told Frederick to put it away, which she later explained in court was because she “was concerned it could be interpreted as advocating illegal drug activity to his schoolmates who were across the street from Frederick in plain view.” After he refused to comply, Ms. Morse confiscated his banner and punished Frederick with 10 days of suspension (later reduced to 8) for violating the school policy against illegal drug advocacy.
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.
...on’s blood was found at the scene of the crime. There may be ways to plant such evidence, but it would be rather difficult to draw blood from a man without him realizing it and planting it at the scene of a crime. I also would have expressed that O.J. had a motive to kill his ex-wife, as well as a history of violent outbursts towards her. With all of the evidence that the prosecution had at their disposal, they should have been able to pin the murder on O.J. beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything pointed to O.J. and showed that he was the murderer. The only thing the prosecution was not able to do was fit the bloody glove on O.J’s hand. The only issue is, the glove was made of leather and had been soaking in blood prior to being found. When leather is soaking in a liquid, it tends to shrink. If only the prosecution had realized this, the case would have been theirs.
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Therefore, if the case presented above is raised, the defence may be used by Jerome. The defence available can be found in subsection eight of the act: it is a defence for the defendant to show that they believed their actions were in the victim’s best interests, and the behaviour was in all the circumstances reasonable. The facts of the case state that Jerome has explained to Talia that his actions are for her and Alicia’s own good. Although this belief may be an honest and rationale belief it cannot be argued that in any way his behaviour was reasonable in the given circumstances. Under the act it will be assumed Jerome has shown the facts in subsection (8) if there is sufficient evidence that raises an issue with respect to the facts and the ‘contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt’ Therefore, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defence should not stand. However, as the statutory framework states, this defence is not just a matter of Jerome believing he was acting in Talia’s best interest. ‘There is an objective element…that allows a...jury to reject the defence where they find that the behaviour of the defendant was not reasonable.’ Given this discretional element and the facts of the case the defence would be a weak one and should not affect the prosecution’s
For instance, the defense has denied to present you with the crucial evidence that would prove her innocence: an alibi. Justine was totally unaccounted for on the night of William’s murder, giving her ample time to commit the atrocity of causing his death. The defense has never presented you with anything that could account for her presence at some other location than the crime scene.
Walsh, James, and Dan Browning. "Presumed Guilty Until Proved Innocent." Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). 23 Jul 2000: A1+. SIRS Issues Researcher.
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
“Death of Baruch College Freshman in Hazing Ritual Ruled a Homicide”, was the headline of the NY Daily News on February 14, 2014. According to the NY Daily News about 30 fraternity members were at a Pocono Mountains rental home on December 8th when Michael Deng died of severe head trauma after he was repeatedly tackled in a frozen backyard while blindfolded and lugging 20 pounds of sand in a knapsack playing the so-called “glass ceiling” game with his brothers. The hazing death is now officially a homicide with plenty of suspects, but as of February 14th there has not been a single arrest.
When the principal of Jena high found out what students were responsible for hanging the nooses, he recommended the students expulsion. After the school board of education and the superintendent explained how it was just a silly prank, they overruled the recommendation. They turned it into a three day suspension. Posterior to the incident, tension between the two groups advanced. This small
During the court, there is no one who can help him to prove that he is not guilty and his friends seems to think that he is guilty for killing his wife. It is really tragic that he is guilty in a second without evidence, but his tone seems brave that he didn’t lose faith. “During this whole ordeal, he never fell apart,” Allison told me. “He wanted people to see him as strong. And I think in the end, that very trait worked against him.” shown the readers that Morton is confident because he knew the truth. When someone asked him questions about his wife’s death, he kept saying that he didn’t do it. He was waiting for the truth to come out because he endure all go pain, false accusations, and lost a family. He shown everyone that he will keep his faith and keep moving forward with confident.