Defendants have the right to all exculpatory and mitigating evidence in the state's possession during the discovery process, which has been the procedure for the last half century. During the discovery phase of the Morton case, the only files that were turned over to Morton’s lawyers were crime scene photos and an autopsy report. Anderson kept everything else back, including the notes from the lead investigator Sergeant Don Wood, and Morton’s oral statements that were taken by Woods and Sheriff Boutwell. According to Morton’s lawyers (Texas Monthly, 2012), they had never encountered this kind of hardball. However, in the state of Texas statute requires law enforcement officers to turn over all their reports and notes once they took the stand, …show more content…
The adult video that he and his wife had viewed the night before was played to the court, used as a prop to emphasize his sexual deviance. The coroner who had changed initial finding of Christine’s time of death based his “findings” off his experiences and not scientific testing which he stated on the record. When Detective Boutwell is called to the stand, he produces six pages of notes, and the prosecution rested. Woods was never called to testify, which is highly unusual for the lead investigator in a criminal case. The defense suspected that the prosecution might be concealing potentially exculpatory evidence and raised this concern with the trial judge (Innocence Project, n.d.). On February 6, 1986, Judge William Lott orders Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson to provide all of Wood's investigative reports on the Morton murder to him to determine if any Brady violation had occurred, meaning that the prosecution withheld information that would provide optionally exonerating evidence in favor of Michael Morton. Lott determines there is nothing exculpatory in the file and orders the files sealed. Just six days from the beginning of the trial, on February 17, 1987, Michael Morton was convicted of the murder of his wife, Christine Morton, and sentenced to life in
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.
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
In this court case I do believe that most of the evidence found in this case should be thrown out because it was found out illegally. The officers stop was over after he found out about the computer. Also the officer did not have the right to move around the things in his trunk to find out about the computer. Mr. Wilson also should not have been convicted since he was asking for an attorney and that told you have the access to in your Miranda Rights. In my opinion Mr. Wilson's 4th and 6th Amendments were violated in the search for the car and the confession.
On May 2, 1998, Cynthia Harrison’s body was found in a restaurant where she and Defendant Timothy Lee Hurst worked. She was found bound, gagged, and stabbed over 60 times and the restaurant safe was unlocked, open and missing hundreds of dollars. The trial lasted 4 days and the State offered forensic evidence that linked Hurst with Harrison’s murder. The State also had witnesses that testified that Hurst had discussed his plan to rob the restaurant. Hurst and Harrison were the only people scheduled to work at the time of the murder. Hurst used an alibi defense, claiming he never made it to work because his car broke down.
The detectives were able to track Richard. He refused to reason with them, but they found an opportunistic approach to search him. He was discovered with Dan Meredith’s wallet. They searched his apartment and found his apartment caked in blood. In 1979, they arrested him and tried him in court for six counts of murder. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in an attempt to avoid death sentence, but was overruled. He was sentenced
“I agree with Ms. Krejci that the entire file should have been disclosed with the publics record request, but that does not make it discoverable.” Feeney said. “I understand her frustration that she wasn 't given the same information that another defense attorney was. When I discovered what had happened, which was in august, I immediately requested the entire file from the Phoenix Police Department so that I could disclose it to the defense council. I didn’t do that because I believed that the information was discoverable or relevant. I did it as a professional courtesy. So that we were on the same field, and so that she felt that she had everything tha...
...hed the car in places where contraband would not normally be found, but it had no relation to the discovery of the cocaine. The weapons found at the ranch are admissible due to the fact the agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons. The Lamborghini is not admissible due to the fact it was not covered by the warrant and the VID# was not in plain sight of the Agent doing the search. The statement made about trying to find Snow White would not be admissible in court because Agent Smith arrested Doe and started asking him questions about Doe's crime before Doe was read his Miranda Rights. Lastly, the statement Doe made about his supplier would be admissible in court because Doe was read his Miranda Rights and acknowledged his understanding of the rights and made a voluntary confession afterwards with no coercion on the part of the Agents involved.
The psychological effects on perception, from contextual information, can dramatically hinder the forensic experts, in such a way, that they come to a completely inaccurate conclusion of any forensic evidence. According to Bernstein et al (2013), perception is the process of taking sensations from the environment, and interpreting them using information and experience to understand the world. In regards to contextual information, perception can be altered or influenced by information that is received from the outside world (Holt et al. 2015). The effects of contextual information alter the perceptual capabilities of a forensic investigator; it is a phenomenon known as figure-ground discrimination (or perceptual discrimination). When perceptual
The Innocence Project, using DNA evidence, has gone back to past cases and exonerated innocent people when they were wrongly convicted. There may be many reasons that several people are wrongly convicted every year. However, there are 6 reasons deemed as the most important regarding wrongful convictions. These reasons are eyewitness misidentification, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions or admissions, government misconduct, informants or snitches, and bad lawyering (understand the causes).
The use of evidence and witnesses is a mechanism in which the law attempts to balance the rights of victims and offenders in the criminal trial process. Evidence used in court are bound by the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and have to be lawfully obtained by the police. The use of evidence and witnesses balance the victims’ rights to a great extent. However, it is ineffective in balancing the rights of offenders. The law has been progressive in protecting the rights of victims in the use and collection of evidence and witness statements. The Criminal Procedure Amendment (Domestic Violence Complainants) Bill 2014, which amends the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, passed the NSW Legislative Council on 18 November 2014. The amendment enables victims of
The Forensic interview technique is a result of the increasing awareness of child abuse and neglect cases in the United States in the last quarter of the 20th century (Newlin et al, 2015). Forensic interviewing has come a long way from when it was first being developed and has continuously evolved to have the best outcome for children. The purpose of Forensic interviewing is to be more child friendly, to consider the age and development of the child, and to be cognizant of a child’s trauma which is specified in the “Purpose of the Child Forensic Interview” and “Considerations Regarding the Child” sections of the Newlin article. Forensic interviewing has become more specialized and developed since it first began to be utilized. It has developed
Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem repeats are also the same for all people, but the number of repetitions is highly variable. Before this discovery, a drop of blood at a crime scene could only reveal a person’s blood type, plus a few proteins unique to certain people. Now DNA forensics can expose a person’s gender, race, susceptibility to diseases, and even propensity for high aggression or drug abuse (Butler, 2011). More importantly, the certainty of DNA evidence is extremely powerful in court. Astounded at this technology’s almost perfect accuracy, the FBI changed the name of its Serology Unit to the DNA Analysis Unit in 1988 when they began accepting requests for DNA comparisons (Using DNA to Solve Crimes, 2014).
“An arrest is using legal authority to deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement. An arrest is generally made with an arrest warrant. An arrest may be made without a warrant if probable cause and exigent circumstances are presented at the time of the arrest.” (Cornwell University) An arrest may be due to criminal or civil proceedings. In each case, the person is placed in custody or under restraint usually for the purpose of compelling obedience to the law. If the arrest is during the course of criminal procedure, the purpose is to hold the person for answer to a criminal charge or to prevent them from committing an offense. In civil proceedings, the purpose is to hold the person to a demand made against the individual. In both
In Criminal cases, the general principle is that when it comes to proving the guilt of an accused person, the burden of proving this rests with the prosecution . In the case of Woolmington v DPP , it was stated in the judgment of Lord Sankey that; “Throughout the web of the English Criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to….. the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception”. From the Judgment of Lord Sankey, the following circumstances where the accused bears the legal burden of proof in criminal cases were established; where the accused pleads the defence of insanity, where a statute or Act of Parliament expressly imposes the legal burden of proof on the defence, and where a statute or Act of Parliament impliedly imposes the legal burden of proof on the defence. An accused person will also bear the legal burden of proof of the statutory defence of diminished responsibility which is covered by section 2(2) Homicide Act 1957. In the cases of Lambert Ali and Jordan , the Court of Appeal held that imposing the legal burden of proof of proving diminished responsibility on the defence does not infringe Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
...n of legally obtained evidence and statements. Each and every person involved in the process of the evidence collection and processing must be available for trial. If one of these parties is not available, it may cause some doubt in the juror’s mind, as to what was done with that piece of evidence. The case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion if any piece of this investigation is not followed by using established guidelines, the outcome will not lead to the successful conviction.