In this case, Dwayne Giles was tried in state court for the murder of his ex-girlfriend. Dwayne Giles shot his ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie, outside the garage of his grandmother’s house. There were not witnesses, but Giles’ niece heard what had occurred from inside the house. She heard Giles and Avie arguing. Avie then yelled “Granny” several times and a series of gunshots sounded. Giles’ niece and grandmother ran outside and saw Giles standing near Avie with a gun in his hand. Avie, who had not been carrying a weapon, had been shot six times. Giles fled the scene after the shooting. Police arrested him about two weeks later. The court allowed prosecutors to introduce statements that the murder victim had made to a police officer responding
to a domestic violence call. Giles claimed self-defense. He stated that he had heard her swear to hurt him and a friend, and that she had previously shot a man and threatened people with knives. He also explained she had vandalized his home and autos. The prosecution introduced evidence of a conversation between Giles' ex-girlfriend and police in which she claimed that he had assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Dwayne Giles was charged with murdering his girlfriend. Since, his girlfriend was dead I think the best evidence they had was the phone call accompanied by the conversation. However, if there was proof of her vandalizing his property that could of helped his case. On appeal, Giles argued that use of the police conversation violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Referring to his deceased ex-girlfriend. The California Supreme Court held that Giles had waived this right because he was the cause of his ex-girlfriend's absence. This exclusion is explained in the federal code 804 (b) (6) “forfeiture by wrongdoing. However, the Court held that the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception only applies to situations where the defendant causes the witness' absence with the intention of preventing that witness from testifying at trial. Without this intention, any act by the defendant making the witness unavailable does not waive that defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine the witness, and therefore any out-of-court statements made by the witness are inadmissible as evidence. I think Giles intentionally killed her.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
On the evening of Ms. Heggar¡¦s death she was alone in her house. Eddie Ray Branch, her grandson, testified that he visited his grandmother on the day that she was killed. He was there till at least 6:30 p.m. Lester Busby, her grandnephew, and David Hicks arrived while her grandson was still there and they saw him leave. They then went in to visit with Ms. Heggar. While they were there, Lester repaid Ms. Heggar 80 dollars, which he owed her. They left around 7:15 p.m. and went next door to a neighboring friend¡¦s house. David Hick¡¦s went home alone from there to get something but returned within ten minutes of leaving. Because he was only gone for 5-10 minutes, prosecution theorized TWO attacks on Ms. Heggar because he could not have killed his grandmother during this 5-10 minute period alone. At 7:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the two had left, an insurance salesman called to see Ms. Heggar. He knocked for about 2 or 3 minutes and got no reply. Her door was open but the screen door was closed. Her TV was on. He claimed to have left after about 5 minutes and then he returned the next morning. The circumstances were exactly the same. With concern, he went to the neighbor¡¦s house and called the police. His reasoning for being there was because the grandmother¡¦s family had taken out burial insurance three days before she had died.
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Murder Could you believe or even imagine a charming, handsome and popular high school boy killing his ex-girl-friend? This is the case involving Adnan Syed in the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. "On January 13, 1999, a girl named Hae Min Lee, a senior at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County, Maryland, disappeared. A month later, her body turned up in a city park.
“The Strange Case of Silas Deane” creates a new perspective on what people see as history. Although many people would define history as something that occurred in the past, through “The Strange Death of Silas Deane”, the writers make evident that this average view on history can be intensely deceptive. History involves examining evidence and drawing connections. There are opposing opinions to what the truth really is, but given the evidence the case cannot be concretely proven.
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.
(Soundbite): “It shows we proved our case. This was a savage attack and everyone in the courtroom knew it. I’m grateful the jury gave Teressa’s family justice.”
This case goes back from the year 1980. A man approached a young woman named Laura Moore at a bus stop in the Spring of 1984. The man disclosed a warning saying “ You shouldn’t be out here alone. Bad guys will pick you up, Let me take you where you have to go.” Moore, 21 at the time , agreed to take the man’s offer. As they both drove off, he then told her to put on her seat belt. When she refused, she states that the man reached under his seat, grabbed a gun and shot her six times. Moore was severely wounded, fortunately she managed to escape, but turned back to study his face. That man was Lonnie David Franklin Jr, now better-known as the serial killer the “Grim Sleeper”. Lonnie David Franklin Jr was convicted of 10-25 women 's murders. The Grim Sleeper murder’s were active during the 1980s and there was a period of time that the killings had stopped. Franklin wanted to keep a low profile. In 2002 the Grim Sleeper’s killing made a surprising return for the community of Los Angeles. For 14 years he remained inactive which raised questions for law
During Adrian Thomas’ trial, the prosecutors made their case around Thomas’ videotaped confession. The prosecution showed the jury segments of the videotaped confession. Thomas’ testified to the jury that all of his admissions of
There are many serial killers who are known for their heinous crimes and killings of their victims. Serial killers however vary from one another leaving it hard to cluster them all together besides the fact that they murder multiple victims. With that being said, there is one serial killer who sticks out as devious and whose crime may not be as “famous” as he wished. This serial killer is known as the Green River Killer.
Held: Evidence would have been admissible as part of the res gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary events. 9 Res Gestae, Topic 3, Law of Evidence. Prepared by Ikram Abdul Sattar, 10. R v. Andrews [1987] 1 All ER 513 where the appellant and another man knocked on the door of the victim’s flat and when the victim opened it, the appellant stabbed him in the chest and stomach with a knife and the two men then robbed the flat.
First, the respondents wrote a whole array of different things to convey different emotions and feelings to the defendant. This includes: expressing of grief and anger towards the defendant, memorating the victim, defending the victim’s reputation, justifying the sentence, asking unanswered questions, etc. (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). In order to write these statements, the victims had to go through a tedious process. The victims had to get the statement approved by victim advocates or prosecutors (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). Mostly, the victim advocates or the prosecutors don’t guide the victim in wirting their statements, but they do want to steer them away from threats against the defendant, obscenely language, or negative views about the ruling or the court (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). They do monitor the victim statements and has to approve them before it can be said in court (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). The judge can stop a victim statement at his/ her own discretion (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). This causes friction between the victims and the criminal justice system as the process is long and have some
officers were acquitted by a jury in a verdict that shocked much of the country. The
She explained that his involvement in the crime was not excessive and that it was his brother who was the leader. She went on to describe his eight previous arrests for crimes like robbery and cocaine possession. Given his long history she said she was not surprised to see him involved in this kind of case. Because of his other charges I thought the prosecutor was going to suggest the higher end of the sentencing guidelines. However, as she continued I realized I was incorrect. Instead of focusing on his previous crimes she talked about how he needed rehabilitation. She emphasized recovery from his current lifestyle more than sending him to prison again. She brought up his involvement in his church and his successful marriage and questioned why he would throw all of that away. She also suggested that he turn to his church and his wife for support and to aid him in his battle with addiction. Throughout the case, the prosecutor was compassionate and seemed more like a disappointed parent to the defendant rather than angry. The one time the prosecutor did act somewhat harsh was towards the middle of her statement. She brought up the fact that the defendant had previous medical conditions such as a stab and shot wounds. She suggested that the defense had asked for these injuries to be taken into account when the sentence was decided on. She was adamant that the court should not take