Murder On A Sunday Morning Sparknotes

Response to the “Murder on a Sunday Morning”
The Monday on a Sunday Morning is a documentary that tells a story of the murder of 65-year-old Mary Ann Stephens, a white tourist, who came to Florida with her husband. Its plot is focused on the court proceedings of this case and mistakes detectives made during the investigation. The husband, James Stevens, saw Mary Ann was shot by an African American young man; and he identified the criminal as a 15-year-old Brenton Butler, when he saw him during the trip on the police car. The teenager was arrested. He signed the confession and the case was sent to the jury court. But here Pat McGuinness, the public defender, was able to prove the boy was forced to sign a confession, and detectives did not make appropriate efforts to investigate this crime. McGuinness highlighted there were not any direct evidences and policemen were prejudiced. The lawyer’s efforts helped to convince the jury of Butler’s innocence; after all the real shooter was found. The man confessed voluntarily and there were direct evidences against him. Brenton

Butler was not sent to jail, but he spent about six months under remand detention; the boy also was hurt by detectives both physically and emotionally. After the trial his family “plans to file an $8.5 million civil rights lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office” (“Murder on a Sunday Morning” 01:50).
The video has several potential main points. Like an innocent man can become a victim of circumstances, when he appears in the wrong place, at the wrong time; or that policemen rush to use the first potentially appropriate suspect to close a controversial deal. The only strong evidence against Butler was the witness testimony of Mr. Stephens. Detectives focused on it while adapting Butler’s words and actions to the case. The video tries to prove that the American system of justice is honest and unprejudiced. It achieved this goal in this case, as the lawyer was able to prove Butler was not guilty. The documentary also showed the police was able to catch the real murderer after all, so the justice has been met. However, the film achieved only a partial success – it showed lawyers are able to save innocent people from prison, but cases with their participation still take place. There were not any mentions of the direct (or strong indirect) evidences in the murder of Mrs. Stephens; policemen did not search Butler’s house for the clothes with blood strains or victim’s bag, the teenager was not checked for the gun shot residue or previous history of the antisocial behavior. But, despite the lack of this procedures, the young man stayed in jail (the documentary did not say anything about family’s attempts to release him on bail), and the case was sent to the court without requirements for the reinvestigation. The prosecutor’s final speech suggested they were ready to condemn the teenager for a murder basing on the controversial words of the victim’s husband (his original description did not align with the final identification of Brenton Butler) and the questionable confession.
The plot of the video is believable, there are similar documentaries that tell about similar police behavior in other countries; they are both historic and contemporary that suggests detectives’ behavior do not change significantly through time.

Policemen were only people who should be blamed in Butler’s case. James Stevens pointed on him, but it was a forgivable mistake of a shocked man. He saw a young, healthy-lean African-American man, and his brain recognized the shooter by mentioning a familiar image. The same thing could happen with a Hispanic or white teenager with a specific bodily composition or outlook. This documentary evokes fear, as it suggests people of different social groups are unprotected against the police abuse. It was the African-American teenager here, but in a different district or other circumstances the victim could be a middle-aged “redneck” or a former female drug

addict.