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 …show more content…
neighborhood for about two hours, which there was no record of. Nevertheless, by 4am they arrived at the police station and began interrogating him after he waived his Miranda rights.
The first typed confession stated that Sanford and three of his friends formulated a plan to rob the house. Apparently, they met at a restaurant and passed out guns, but on the drive to the house Sanford got out of the car, and ended up walking home. He was released that night. However, there were many inconsistencies in his confession such that the restaurant he spoke of had been closed for months, the caliber of the guns described were incorrect, and he also did not match descriptions given by witnesses who saw only two men running from the house. Even though he knew little of the crime, police investigators pushed him closer to the confessions they needed. The second confession was not recorded, and the only evidence was a final statement. The third interrogation was a lot closer to the confession the police needed and matched descriptors of what the witness saw, the vehicle, and an accomplice. Later, Sanford would recount where the bodies lay in the …show more content…
house. It is no surprise that Sanford was wrongfully convicted due to a false confession. It is not the first nor the last case where an innocent person goes to prison for a crime they did not commit, despite lack of physical evidence. The problem with this case lies in the methods used by police investigators in interrogation. Courts typically rely on DNA evidence to sentence and exonerate convicts, but his case was reinvestigated because of pressured tactics used by police investigators. Sanford was a minor at the time, making him an even more vulnerable and suggestible suspect under intense interrogation. The police committed many errors during this case. One was keeping little to no record between the two hours that they drove Sanford around and little record during interrogations. It is evident that the type of confession elicited was an instrumental coerced-complaint confession. This typically occurs because of pressure exerted in an interrogation. According to Sanford, his confession was one he made up under the pressure of police interrogation. He provided a coerced compliant confession in which he knew he did not commit the murder but confessed to escape the interrogation room. This is seen often after suspects are interrogated for hours without break and experience intense emotional and physical fatigue. Moreover, police used psychological tactics to elicit a confession despite Sanford not knowing details of the crime.
They may have used the Reid techniques since these are the practices most officers are trained in to question suspects and elicit confessions. The psychological strategies used by investigators, especially after long hours of interrogation can make anyone susceptible to a false confession. Police officers lie, ask lots of questions, and constantly put the suspect on defense. But most importantly, whether deliberately or unintentionally they let significant details slip out which renders it easier for a suspect to create a story that fits the real crime. Nonetheless, police shouldn’t use the same questioning tactics on minors that they use on adults for many reasons. First, minors lack brain and psychological maturity which makes them vulnerable and suggestible under intense and pressured interrogation. Second, they are often complaint to authority. This can be seen when Sanford listened to the former detective who told him to “be truthful,” and when he continued to change his confession to fit what the investigators needed. Lastly, minors should have legal representation or a competent adult present when they are being interrogated. This is because they have little notion of the consequences of confessing to murder and are uninformed of their
rights. It is important for police investigators to keep record of all interrogations and be cautious of the tactics they use on minors or vulnerable suspects. This can be advantageous for police investigators to show the courts, judges and jurors exactly what occurred during an interrogation.
The Jonbenet Ramsey case has remained unsolved for twenty years now, and I realize, it might not ever be solved, but I do have a theory. My theory involves three different things, the build up, the murder and the cover-up. In the end, I do not think that there was an intruder that broke in the house, the evidence just doesn’t add up to that. I feel as if somebody in the family killed her, and the Ramseys covered it up. If you go even deeper, John Ramsey could have compensated John Mark Karr to take the blame, and to get some of all of the post-murder weight off of his chest. In order to find who killed J.B.R., we have to look into the Ramseys’ lives first. We know that the Ramseys had money, a lot of it. And the odd amount of money in the ransom note just doesn’t make any
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
While researching this case I stumbled upon many others and I became aware of how many people have suffered from the injustice of being found guilty. While reading parts of the book “Real Justice: Fourteen and Sentenced to Death the Story of Steven Truscott” I learned that the police played a large role in why 14-year-old Truscott was found guilty of murder. The book showed that they forced witnesses to change their story to further “prove” Truscott’s guilt of the crime. This led to the conclusion that in this case (like many others) the police were solely and unjustly targeting one
I recently read a book called Monster by Walter Dean Myers, in which a sixteen year-old boy named Steve Harmon was arrested for being accused of shooting a drugstore owner, and watched a documentary titled Murder on a Sunday Morning about a fifteen year-old Brenton Butler being charged with murdering a woman at a motel. I found that the book and the documentary had many similarities and differences. I thought this because both cases are about a young African-American boy who is in custody for something that they did not do. Both police investigations didn't go thoroughly and just rushed through to arrest the boys immediately and are centered around a white defense attorney who tries to convince the jury that the male teen did not committed the crime by giving out evidence.
The case involved a neighborhood watchman, who happened to be on duty when he saw a young black man wearing a sweater jacket called a “hoodie”, walking through the neighborhood. George Zimmerman, the watchman, who was twenty-eight years old at the time, called authorities about a suspicious character walking around in his neighborhood. The authorities told him not to do anything; just continue with his rounds and not worry. Zimmerman, however, decided he would take matters into his own hands. He confronted the young man; they got into a brawl and Zimmerman pulled out a gun and shot and killed Martin. That premise will play a role in this paper as an argument as to why George Zimmerman should have been convicted of committing a crime. Even if the jury could not have reasons to convict him of the second degree murder of Trayvon Martin; they had other choices.
It was summer hot and humid July but all was not well for homicide was in the air. Jeremy Ringquist had, after a divorce and begin unemployed, had taken up residence with his parents once again. Thirty-eight years of age Jeremy, was charged with the death of his parents and attempting to hide the bodies in a freezer.
On May 7th 2000, fifteen year old Brenton Butler was accused of the murder of Mary Ann Stephens, who had been fatally shot in the head while walking down a breezeway of a hotel with her husband. Two and a half hours later, Butler is seen walking a mile away from where the incident occurred, and is picked up by the police because he fit the description of the individual who shot Mary Ann Stephens. However, the only characteristic of the description that Butler featured was the color of his skin. Police then brought Butler to the scene of the crime in order for Mary Ann Stephens’s husband, James Stephens, to confirm whether or not Butler was the individual who had shot his wife. Almost immediately, Stephens identifies Butler as his wife’s killer.
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
The ransom note was photographed in the wrong place, the police did not immediately search the house, and friends and family were allowed to enter the home. Due to the holidays, the coroner arrived more than six hours from when he was called. It was not until 1:20 p.m., a thorough search was proposed and ordered to do by John Ramsey (Ramsland). Since the police allowed family and friends to enter the Ramsey’s home, it enabled various people to touch vital evidence and compromise the crime scene. If the police would have properly secured the crime scene and took affirmative action sooner clear evidence could have been obtained, directing them to the killer. Jonbenet was found in her own home by her father after several hours of “searching” which immediately led people to become suspicious. Most compelling evidence suggests that JonBenet was murdered several hours before she was found. The time frame of death indicates that JonBenet was “abducted” right after her parents put her to bed. Evidence suggests no sign of forced entry, as well as a lack of footprints in the snow surrounding the house. Whoever committed this crime must have been familiar with the layout of the house since the body was hidden in the wine cellar in the basement (Bardsley and Bellamy). With this information, clearly someone inside the house was in some way involved in the murder of JonBenet. To be more specific, all signs point to John
In order to incriminate Danial Williams, Joseph Dick, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice with the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, Detectives Maureen Evans and Robert Ford conducted long, grueling interrogation sessions using many provocative and manipulative tactics. Throughout this process, Ford and Evans coerced the suspects into renegotiating their perception of the crime until an entirely new reality was created. This new reality evolved as the police elicited additional confessionary evidence to account for each new piece of physical evidence from the crime scene. Eventually, in an iterative process that had police editing their theories of the crime and then forcing the suspects to claim this new reality as their own, the reconciled reality of the crime became one that was consistent with both the criminal evidence and the suspects’ new perception. An analysis of empirical m...
The first suspect is Edward “Bennie” Bedwell. Bedwell was a local dishwasher who was questioned at a local motel for three days (Sigona). What supported Bedwell as a suspect is that he actually confessed to the murder (Sigona). There were multiple problems with Bedwell’s confession, however. The first problem with his confession is, “Bedwell couldn’t read or write, so it would be nearly impossible for him to understand what he was confessing to” (Sigona). The second problem with his confession is “After a time, everyone realized Bedwell’s story didn’t add up. There were inconsistencies, including the fact that Bedwell said he was with the girls for a month before they died” (Sigona). Finally, the main problem with his confession is that the girls were dead within four hours of leaving home (Sigona). The other suspect in the case of the murder of Barbara and Patricia Grimes is Max Fleig. Max Fleig was a young man in his teens when the Grimes sisters were murdered (MacGowan). Max offered to take a lie detector test, which he failed (MacGowan). The reason Fleig was released even after failing the test is “The police began to focus on him as a prime suspect until they were told that it was illegal to polygraph someone underage. The police released him, many of the authorities thinking he was their man” (MacGowan). Another example that supports Fleig as a suspect is that he was imprisoned later in his life
In this documentary, we never go into the minds of any of the people, but only get to interpret what we see and hear. This documentary was filmed in Jacksonville, Florida where Brenton Butler, a 15 year old African American boy was accused of the murder of Mary Ann Stephens. The main people in this documentary are Ann Fennell, Patrick McGuiness, Brenton Butler, and detectives Williams, Glover, and Darnell. Ann Fennell and Patrick McGuisness are the two defense attorney’s on Brenton’s behalf. Brenton Butler is the boy being accused of murder. Detectives Williams, Glover, and Darnell are the detectives in department 3 the violated many laws and policies while holing Brenton in
On April 19th, 1989, Trisha Meili was the victim of violent assault, rape, and sodomy. The vicious attack left her in a coma for 12 days and The New York Times described it as “one of the most widely publicized crimes of the 1980’s.” The documentary, The Central Park Five, reveals the truth about what happened the night of April 19th, and how the subordinate group of young black boys were wrongly convicted. Analyzing the conflict theory of crime in association to the case of the central park five, understanding the way they were treated based on setting, why it was so easy for the law enforcement to pin the crime on the young black boys, and how wrongly convicting someone has great consequences along with relating it
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 West Memphis Three Trial: Who was the real killer or killers?." The West Memphis Three