After 28 years behind bars for a murder he did not commit, Lamar Johnson is now an exonerated man. In 1995, Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting of his friend, Markus Boyd. At just 21 years old, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, leaving behind his girlfriend and two young daughters. The guilty verdict came down to one key factor, Greg Elking, the single eyewitness. Looking past the inconsistencies within the case and taking word of mouth over investigative evidence, the jury came to a guilty conclusion in less than two hours. Since the day of his incarceration, Johnson became his own lawyer, building a new case to prove his innocence and pursue a retrial. After three decades of denial, …show more content…
Louis and the police officers on his case, for both punitive damages and monetary compensation for his years in prison. With the federal lawsuit, he is accusing several former officers of fabricating the entire case and violating his civil rights, but most importantly, he wants them to be held accountable and face the consequences. A major component that led to Johnson’s incarceration was the fact that the original investigation was extremely quick and unfinished. Launching a reinvestigation, the Midwest Innocence Project found a multitude of errors in the original conviction. To start, officers failed to thoroughly investigate Johnson’s strong alibi, in which it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. Additionally, a letter was written to Johnson by Phil Campbell, who was also arrested for Boyd’s murder, plainly explaining Campbell and another man, who was never arrested, were at fault for the crime while Johnson was completely innocent. This reality is embodied by the prosecution’s most compelling claim of the witness, Elking, who admitted to blatantly lying. He repeatedly acknowledged in the retrial that identifying Johnson as the shooter was a complete falsification of the
I am currently doing an internship with the local police department. I was had a broad selection of different areas I could work for under the local police department. I ultimately chose to work under a small Innocence Project. This team is with four other students and defense attorneys in the local area to look at other cases that were found guilty which they have been convicted of a crime they did not do. After looking at many different cases, we chose to look at one case in particular, his name is Willie Johnson. Willie was convicted at 18 years-old for raping a 16-year-old girl after a school dance. He was convicted over 15 years ago. Willie told the court that he was trying to break into the victim’s car to get a CD player that was out in the open, which explains why Willies fingerprints were all over the car door. Willie explained he left because there was a large man who was in a dark area. After
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
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
On the night of November 28th 1976, 28-year-old Randall Adams was hitchhiking on a Dallas road when 16-year-old David Harris picked him up. Harris, a runaway from Texas had stolen the car along with his father’s shotgun. They spent the day together and that night went to a drive-in movie The Swinging Chandeliers. Later that same evening officer Robert Wood was shot and killed when he pulled a car matching the exact description as Harris’s over. Two witnesses-including Harris, named Adams as the murderer. Adams received a death penalty sentence that in 1979 that later was reduced to life in prison. It was early in the 1980’s when director Errol Morris happened upon Adams’s court transcripts whilst shooting a different documentary about a Dallas psychiatrist who was frequently consulted in death row cases. Convinced of Adams innocence and the false accusations made against him Morris began making a film on the subject.
Your honor, we the jury are here today to give our decision on the punishment in the case before the court titled the state of Texas v. James Broadnax. Your honor, as you and everyone in the court room here today recalls, the defendant was charged of murdering two people in their mid-to-late twenties. For the record purposes sir, let the record show the two victims go by the names of Mr. Stephen Swan and Mr. Matthew Butler. Let the record also further indicate the defendant goes by the name of Mr. James Broadmax.
A University of San Diego professor whose daughter’s disappearance become a recurring factor in his life, has finally gotten the peace he deserves. After approximately five years of three unsolved murders, assailant David Allen Lucas, was convicted and sentenced to death. Lucas was a carpet cleaner from Spring Valley, CA and was 23 when he first committed a murder, but this was not his first time being convicted. In 1973, at the age of 18 Lucas was incarcerated after being convicted of raping a 21-year-old maid who had worked for a family friend.
The crime he committed was terrible and obviously something that could only be done with someone who lacks any good intentions. His behavior during the his trial also showed the extent of his maliciousness. He half-heartedly attempted to defend himself by claiming the prosecutors were using false evidence and that, according the records of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, “Nobles concludes that he was denied the fundamentally fair and impartial trial guaranteed him by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment”. He put very little effort into defending himself during the trial and was quickly sentenced to death. In the early years of his time in prison he was far from the ideal prisoner. Earle presents how “He once broke away from guards while returning to his cell from the exercise yard and climbed the exposed pipes and bars in the cell block, kicking down television sets suspended outside on the bottom tier.” and on another occasion he cut himself just so he could hit an officer while they were attending to him before he passed out. This kind of behavior was completely eradicated long before he was executed, procuring him the respect of the prison
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
The Texas vs Johnson case didn't drastically change the way people viewed things. Yes, the trial caused a lot of uproar, especially in Texas because of its patriotism, but it wasn't a case in which a law or amendment needed to be changed but rather was a case in which an amendment needed to be understood. Johnson’s act of burning the American flag in front of Dallas City Hall, in order to protest the Reagan administration during the Republican National Convention, was deemed as a sign of “symbolic” speech. Johnson’s act was ruled to be protected by the first amendment because speech was considered more than just the written word. The Supreme Court ruled it as such because of prior cases such as “Stromberg v. California” and “Tinker v. Des
After a lengthy two hundred and fifty-two-day trial “not guilty” were the words that left the world in shock. O.J Simpson was your typical golden boy. He had it all, the nice car, the football career, and his kids. Unfortunately, this all came to an end when two bodies came to be spotted deceased in Nicole Browns front yard and was a gruesome sight. O. J’s ex-wife Nicole Brown and her friend Ronald Goldman both found with brutal stab marks. Unfortunately, all his glory days now brought to an end, he went from playing on the field to begging for his freedom when becoming the main suspect of their murders. Since this trial has not only altered the way Americans viewed celebrities, but it also racially divided society,
"The West Memphis Three Trial: Who was the real killer or killers?." The West Memphis Three
RELATED MURDER TRIALS: Making A Murderer: The Case For And Against Steve Avery And Brendan Dassey
Another interesting fact came out in this case regarding Johnson. During the investigation it was found out that Johnson had nickname called murder man. He did not deny these allegations that was his name on the street. Officers ask Johnson if he ever enter the premises of where the murder occur. Johnson confirm that he had enter the location of where the murder occurred. There was also men clothing located at the property implying further that Johnson may have murder the victims Heather Camp and Nicole Sartell. Ardentric Johnson did admit as well during the integration with officers that he had seen the victim Heather Camp previously before she was murder. Evidence also points out that Johnson may have locked up the second victim Nicole Sartell for 46 hours and force her to smoke crack cocaine. Sartell body was found in the closet few days after the first victim, Heather Camp body had appeared. With this accumulating evidence against the accuser Ardentric Johnson, he has been charged with the two murders of Heather Camp and Nicole Sarell. END OF
On June 13, 1994, Nicole Brown, ex-wife of O.J. Simpson, was found murdered alongside Ronald Goldman (Dershowitz 19). Chapter one of Reasonable Doubts describes how many people jumped to the conclusion that O.J. carried out the murders. Incriminating evidence emerged that more than pointed to Simpson’s guilt (Dershowitz 21). Soon enough, media reports claimed that Simpson would be charged with two counts of first-degree murder. Simpson’s reluctance to be peacefully taken into custody was illustrated by his famous Los Angeles free-way chase that ended in his eventual surrender (Dershowitz 23). Dershowitz chose to join the defense team when offered the opportunity, claiming that the case could greatly educate people, especially his Harvard law students, on...
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .