If a mother left her six month old child alone at home, alone for seven days, would you say she is guilty or innocent of second degree murder? A woman named Mary Barnett left her six month old child at home for a week while she traveled to San Francisco to visit her fiancé. While left unattended, the child died of dehydration. Mary Barnett is being charged with second degree murder. During her trial, the jury heard from numerous witnesses, some seemed reliable and some seemed solid. The witness included Caroline, a policeman, Dr. Parker, Alice, Dr. Bloom, and of course, Mary Barnett.
The first witness to take the stand was Caroline Hospers, a neighbor of Mary Barnett. Caroline gave both opinions, and facts. Caroline seemed very biased. By saying “she was thinking only of herself” Caroline made me feel that she had some sort of a grudge with Mary before the trial even began. Although Carline gave several opinions, she also gave the jury some solid facts. Caroline stated that, “Her garbage was always filled with empty whiskey and wine bottles.” By telling this to the court, we know th...
(Pg ix) Godbeer wants the reader to learn and understand that the trial involving Katherine Branch was more accurate and similar to how other witch trials were handled. The judges in this book, take into consideration evidence, and the things they can and can not prove. They also take into consideration what others have to say, but they use it very lightly because people can say whatever they want. They need clear evidence that backs up the accusation.
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.
Imagine being wrongfully trialled for the murders of your father and stepmother. Well, this was Lizzie Borden’s reality in the notorious 19th century case. In August, 1892, the gruesome murders of Andrew and Abby Borden took place in a small town named Fall River. Because Lizzie Borden was believed to have a lot to gain with the murders of her parents, she was the only one accused of being the murder. With this case, I believe the council was right for pleading Lizzie as innocent. The public and police tried to use theories against her in court to prove she was guilty. With the whole public against her, Lizzie still stood strong and was proven innocent for the murders.
... She could not even explain exactly what happened at that time; rather, she kept saying ‘I do not know, but they raped me anyways.’ Besides, the medical evidence showing that they did not rape her and Bates should have been regarded as important proof, but it was useless to prove their innocence. Even the juries were all selected as the Whites, and there were some juries who were illiterate. These circumstances sound obviously unfair and tragic in that the unfair trials led all Blacks to being imprisoned.
Unlike other documentations of the trials against those accused, the reader gets to hear a little bit of Sarah Good and what she has to say. In the examination of Sarah Good she states that she is "falsely accused"; the documentation shows the actual conversation that she has and it makes her appear more personable and seeing as how she is claiming innocence, more wrongful charged as well. The defendants' case even more solidified when more examinations are shown in documentation portraying the blamelessness of Sarah Good in that "she never had familiarity att the devell" This raises the question of how Sarah Good can be charged with conspiring with the devil when she has no familiarity of it.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
This scandalous case centers on a woman named Katherine Watkins. On Friday, August 18, 1681, Katherine accused a slave by the name of John Long, also known as Jack, of rape. There was some evidence of violence, but there were also outstanding questions about her character and conduct. Those who testified, however, painted a different picture about certain events preceding the crime. They were John Aust, William Harding, Mary Winter, Lambert Tye, Humphrey Smith, Jack White (Negro), Dirk (Negro), and Mingo (Negro). Whether these individuals were so inclined because Katherine Watkins was a Quaker, rather than an Anglican, we can never really know. That certainly fueled the fire, though. The day in question involved an afternoon of cider drinking. Several of the witnesses in the testimonies recounted Mrs. Watkins sexual advances to multiple of Thomas Cocke 's slaves, particularly, a mulatto named Jack. John Aust pleaded that Katherine, at one point, had lifted the shirt of one slave and announced “Dirke thou wilt have a good long thing” (Sex and Relations, 53). She allegedly had thrown another on the bed, kissed him, and, “put her hand into his codpiece” (Sex and Relations, 53). The most interesting piece of evidence that Aust brings forward is that Jack was actually avoiding Watkins at the party, an apparent attempt at avoiding any intimate entanglement with her (Sex and Relations, 52). Finally, he reported that Watkins and Jack had gone into a side room (Sex and Relations, 53). Later in the trial, Humphrey Smith seemingly referred to Aust 's testimony. His deposition suggested that he and Aust had some reservations about Jack 's guilt (Sex and Relations 54). Clearly, the character of the plaintiff was considered important evidence in the trial of a slave for rape. The reasonable extenuating circumstances of the case might have granted the magistrates leave way
There were no trials for those who were accused. Everybody simply ignored this. This was simple and clear violation of the constitution and its amendments. This situation had lots of similarities with the Salem witch trials because in both cases none of those accused had a fair trial or a chance to get out of the situation they were in. In both situations most of the time the accused got hanged.
When viewed from a strictly medical, psychological aspect, Andrea Yates medical history indicates that after the birth of her first child, she began to suffer from various forms of depression and suicide attempts. If one only examines the paper trail and doesn’t think beyond what the medical history does or does not indicate, then perhaps, Andrea would be innocent by reason of mental insanity as the 2006 acquittal suggest. However, when viewed form a legal aspect there are several inconstancies that challenge if this former nurse was insane or if she in fact premeditated the murder of her children as well as her acquittal.
A basic sense of honesty is another of Mary Warren’s traits. In Act I she goes to Salem to convince Abigail to tell the truth about what really happened in the woods. When the witchcraft scare gets out of hand, Mary joins Abigail and the other girls in falsely accusing women of being witches. These false accusations are motivated by hysteria. There is evidence that Mary really believes that the women in court are bewitching her. She tells the judge that she thought she saw spirits. The other girls were screaming, and before she knew it, Mary was screaming with them. When she realizes that there are no spirits, Mary is willing to be truthful. After Elizabeth Proctor’s name is brought up in court, Mary Warren defends her against the accusation. At the end of Act II, the reader hopes that the basic sense of honesty will remain strong enough to allow Mary to testify on behalf of the accused women in Act III.
When this story broke I noticed a few of the headlines from various news source. Each headline and in return each article somewhat mirrored each other with the limited facts of the case. These simply put, where that while cleaning the garage Megan Huntsman's husband had found a dead baby, wrapped in plastic, in the garage. The police were called and the officers found the deceased infant inside the plastic bag. The husband, Darren West, contacted his wife and asked about the dead baby. She admitted to her husband the baby was stillborn and placed in a box. At that point the police got a search warrant and discovered six additional bodies. All the bodies appeared to be infants. Megan Huntsman was detained and admitted that between 1996 and 2006 she gave birth to at least seven babies at the residence, and that all the babies, but one, were born alive. She further confessed to either strangling or suffocating the babies immediately after they were born (See attached Affidavit). After these f...
By the standards of the 1740s, this case should have been a draw. Their sole witness was a young, female servant. All three of those characteristics should have made her a null witness. Her status as a servant should have made her a bad witness by the standards of the day. Also, females at the time were not considered reliable witnesses and at many points in history, were not even allowed to testify in court.
In this passage, the narrator reports--based on Luther's account--what he thinks happened the night George and Cal went to Harvey's house to get revenge on George in Sherwood Anderson's "A Jury Case." At first glance, the reader can easily believe this somewhat interesting, plausible scenario. However, if we analyze the details and "known" facts in the events surrounding the killing of Harvey Groves, we realize that this passage constitutes a "loose" interpretation grounded in a misconception of George. Put simply, there is evidence to suggest that Luther fabricates this scenario to showcase his storytelling abilities.
...ive in prison until the trial. It is believed that, because of her family’s wealth, she had a nicer cell and decent food. She was then tried by a twelve man jury. Her husband was friends with a man on the jury, who probably helped Mary. He inevitably appealed to the other jury members on her behalf. Her family’s wealth and influence undoubtedly helped her obtain release, as well.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.