In the discussion of the Trials of Darryl Hunt, The Trials of Darryl Hunt is one of those stories you find yourself watching on the edge of your seat, thinking that this cannot be possibly true. I observed an documentary of the brutal rape and murder in the South by a wrongfully convicted man named Darryl Hunt, which spent twenty years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Hunt spent the next 20 years of his life trying to prove his innocence more than a decade of his struggle. The most interested aspect about the Darryl Hunt case is how the first trial featured an enormous amount of errors by the investigation and prosecution teams. I saw how that there was no physical evidence, a photo lineup was bungled, timelines didn’t match, and witnesses were very unreliable.
The one thing we can do for people that are wrongfully convicted is to get them represented by an People’s Law Office that is a practice on handling false imprisonment cases. I think that countless innocent people have been wrongly accused and falsely incarcerated
…show more content…
In the begining, she told police that she was with Hunt on the night of the crime and that he couldn’t have done it. But she was under arrest and told police that Hunt had admitted to her that he committed the crime. She recanted before trial, but prosecutors presented her statements to the jury which was a major problem in the case. Another issue was the appeal, even though Hunt was innocent, I think he should have taken a plea bargain and be sentenced to time already served in exchange for a guilty plea due to the prosecutors had introduced the statements of Hunt’s girlfriend after she had recanted them. He was retried before an all-white jury and the main eyewitnesses from the first trial testified again and two jailhouse informants testified that Hunt had admitted guilt to them while in prison which sent him to prison
They found Casey Anthony, who was charged with first degree murder of her 3-year-old, not guilty. While she was not guilty of murder, she was convicted on counts four through seven for false information given to the police. The judge sentenced her to one year in county jail for each one of the four counts, but she was released 10 days after she received 1043 days credit. If I was part of the jury I would have said she was guilty of murdering her daughter. Even if she did not kill her, she is still part of the reason why she died. Casey neglected her child either way and did not report the crime to the police until someone else did. I am shocked that the visual evidence did not convince the jury that she was guilty. From the strand of hair in the trunk that matched the past child’s hair, to the extensive research on chloroform found on all web browsers, it was very evident that she did or was at least part of murdering her
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
When the FBI looked at it they thought that it was just right that she was getting convicted because they thought that she did it, too. They didn’t like Patty Hearst case because her father Randolph Apperson Hearst was a newspaper heir worldwide, so they kidnapped his daughter to get back at him that he was famous. The SLA wanted to be famous, so they kidnapped his daughter to be famous around the world. When they knew nobody would help her, they just convicted her because they thought she was the one that robbed the
In July of 2008, one of the biggest crime cases devastated the United States nation-wide. The death of Caylee Anthony, a two year old baby, became the most popular topic in a brief amount of time. Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, became the main suspect after the child supposedly was kidnapped and went missing. To this day, the Casey Anthony case shocks me because justice, in my opinion, wasn’t served. I feel as if the criminal conviction system became somewhat corrupted in this case. The entire nation, including the court system, knew that Casey Anthony was behind this criminal act, but yet she escaped all charges. I chose this case not only because it’s debatable, but also to help state the obvious, this case was handled the wrong way. Clearly the legal system was biased, which worked in Casey Anthony’s favor, freeing a murderer.
If that does not occur to the reader as an issue than factoring in the main problem of the topic where innocent people die because of false accusation will. In addition, this book review will include a brief review of the qualifications of the authors, overview of the subject and the quality of the book, and as well as my own personal thoughts on the book. In the novel Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right authors Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer expose the flaws of the criminal justice system through case histories where innocent men were put behind bars and even on death row because of the miscarriages of justice. Initially, the text promotes and galvanizes progressive change in the legal
Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse informants, eyewitness error, erroneous forensic science, inappropriate, professional and institutional misconduct and scientific limitations that society possessed prior to the technological revolution (Roberts, Grossman, 2012, 253 – 259). The introduction of more advanced DNA analysis has been able to clear names and prevent these incidences from occurring as often. As well as the formation of foundations such as The Association of Defense for the Wrongly Convicted (AIDWYC). Unfortunately, mistakes made in the Canadian Justice System have serious life altering repercussions for everyone that is involved. Both systematic and personal issues arise that require deeper and more intense analysis.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
Now, it takes a lot of courage for an investigator to stand up and admit a wrongful conviction, especially in a case that he helped to convict. That brings me to think agree with the statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehmquist “the justice system has not yet learned to confront the fact that, even when there are no easily identifiable misstep, it can produce an unjust outcome.” (Clifford 4) It is because of this reason, that manyinnocent people end up in jail. Despite the efforts to get them out, many of them are denied. It took nine years for federal agents to even consider looking into the Edward Garry conviction case. In addition, it took another three years for Garry’s lawyer to get a post-conviction motion, which was denied by a Bronx judge, saying that the new evidence wasn’t credible. And still, Garry has yet to be absolved for this crime that he did not commit despite witnesses testifying on his behalf. This is a really depressing case because of the fact that Garry has become broken. “Garry gives the impression of a man who has been inside literally and figuratively for far too long.” Twenty one years of his innocent life that he may never get back. All because this justice system has failed him as a
The aspect of wrongful conviction is established within law to protect the innocent from being abused by the law. Nevertheless, the real issue of concern is the fact of whether wrongful conviction actually helps those who cannot help themselves. With that said, another important underlying factor is whether the criminal justice system has restrictions set up to help those from being innocently convicted and those who have been convicted and later was found to be innocent. By looking at the case of Guy Paul Morin, one will see how the police, courts, and criminal justice system failed in aiding the innocent and bringing justice in society, as well as showing that the system has failed in helping its people, and what must be done to aid those who have been wrongfully convicted.
With the help from F. Lee Bailey, who spent five years appealing the verdict; all the way to the Supreme Court, released Sheppard from prison granting retrial for inherently prejudicial publicity (Rompalske 20). Although Sheppard was found not guilty in 1966, his life had been des...
Most of her clients to poor to make bail. Even if they did not commit the crime, it made sense for them to say they did. They would get out of jail quicker if the pleaded guilty than if they fought their
This case was publicized way too much on national television. Just like the rape case for the Kobe Bryant trial, there was way too much media involvement, resulting in the leak of the victim’s name which started the case to downhill from there. If the media was not heavily involved which led to the victim being pressured by scrutiny and threats, Kobe Bryant probably would have been convicted of rape with the victim being a witness on the stand with her testimony.
At the age of 14, Davontae Sanford was sentenced to 90 years in prison for killing four people in a Detroit home. In 2008, Vincent Smothers the real killer confessed to the crime, shot had already confessed a month prior. He served 9 years in prison for murders he did not commit, until his case was finally reinvestigated. He was exonerated through the re-examination of his confession which was presumed to be coerced. There appeared to be many discrepancies in Sanford’s confession and police statements. Before the teen confessed, he was questioned by a police investigator who contacted a former homicide detective that Sanford was related to. The former detective asked Sanford to be “truthful.” Police investigators drove him around through the
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.