Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Biases jurors on 12 angry men
Interview interrogations
Biases jurors on 12 angry men
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Biases jurors on 12 angry men
On the morning of December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their home in Houston Texas. Police recovered six shotgun shell casings at the home and their investigation led them to defendant Genovevo Salinas who agreed to hand over his weapon for ballistics testing and to go to the police station for questioning. The interview lasted for about one hour, and both parties agree it was noncustodial therefore he was not read his Miranda warning. Salinas answered most of the officer’s questions during the interview, but fell silent and his body tensed up when asked if the shotgun would match the shells recovered at the murder scene. After a few minutes of silence, the officer continued to ask more questions, which he did answer. Salinas did not testify at his own trial and, even with his objection, the prosecution used his silence in response to the officer’s question as evidence that he was guilty.
Salinas was eventually convicted of murder and both the Texas State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the verdict. They did however ignore his claim ...
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
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.
At the time of trial, Mr. Wardlow tried to suppress the handgun as evidence due to the fact that he believed the gun had been seized under an unlawful stop and frisk that violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by requiring a showing of probable cause in order to obtain a warrant before conducting such searches. “In a trial motion to suppress the gun, Wardlow claimed that in order to stop an individual, short of actually arresting the person, police first had to point to ‘specific reasonable inferences’ why the stop was necessary.”(Oyez, 2000) Recognizing that an investigati...
Read the posted case study about Benita Vasquez and discuss the following questions: 1. What are the clinical causes of death in the story? a. Senora Vasquez died because of uncontrolled diabetes, Infected wound and diffusing kidneys. With not well-controlled diabetes and acquiring an infected burn wound makes it harder for the patient to get treatment. Thus with the condition of the patient and her current social status, she is unable to afford the treatment and medications needed to alleviate her suffering.
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.
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
Texas. That has to do with Pedro Fernandez murdering his employer after a heated argument in a cantina. Realizing that this was not simply a murder case, but a case in which Mexican discrimination could be noticed, Gus Garcia and a team of Mexican-American lawyers took the case all the way to the Supreme Court where they challenged Jim Crow-style discrimination against Mexican Americans. On May 3, 1954, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in the case; Pedro would receive a new trial and would be judged by a true jury of his peers since Mexican Americans were protected under the 14th Amendment. Hernandez V. Texas marked a date of a change in the United States of America when the Supreme Court Recognized the Mexican American class truly as a class
(B) "Texas v. Johnson Certiorari To The Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas." Blacula. (1989): 20pp. Online. Internet. 16 Nov. 1999.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
Walsh, James, and Dan Browning. "Presumed Guilty Until Proved Innocent." Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN). 23 Jul 2000: A1+. SIRS Issues Researcher.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
...eemed so real. In conclusion the Texas government should have done a better job during this investigation and figured out it was an accident before an innocent man was executed.
...t I do not think that the evidence presented is enough for a conviction to sentence any man or woman to death.