More handpicked essays just for you.
Effectiveness of the criminal trial process
Justice system and mental health
Issues with mental health and the justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Innocent Man by John Grisham follows the wrongful convictions of four innocent men after a series of murders in a small town in Ada, Oklahoma. The murders of Debbie Carter and Denice Haraway were gruesome and led to four men receiving a conviction of murder and rape, imprisonment, and near executions. Ada in 1982, with a population of 16,000 persons, it was a close knit community where everyone knew everyone and all the drama around the community. This complicated the murder, as the suspects targeted were men that had prior history of sexual assault and criminal background. Unfortunately, during the trial of the men, they stayed within the small town and did not motion of a change in venue. They also did not allow for a plea of incompetence, …show more content…
even with the lack of forensic evidence pointing to the guiltiness of the men and they used evidence that withheld very low validity to form a murder that was never completed by these men.
Competence is known as the capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly in a legal proceeding. Concerns about a defendant’s competence comes down to the primary principle that within a criminal proceeding, one should not continue against a person who does not understand the nature of their crime and purpose for doing so. This results in the person not being able to assist in defending against the prosecution on the charges at hand. Ron Williams should have been considered incompetent to stand trial during his trial. Throughout the novel, Ron Williams had been known for being a little “off”. He had been in and out of psychiatric counseling and treatment. In February of 1985, Ron had been in court on accounts of escape charges. He took a plea deal and would most likely be dropped if he completed court ordered mental health counseling, stayed out of trouble, stayed in Pontotoc County, and refrained from alcohol. However, a few month later Ron was arrested with charges of intoxication and was sentenced to serve the rest of his sentence for the escaping charges, due to his sentence being revoked. …show more content…
Unexpectedly the day of the trial, Ron entered the courtroom unmedicated. He was screaming and arguing with his appointed attorney, deputies, and judge. His attorney motioned for a hearing on his competency but it was called off due to more extreme acts by Ron in later months. Instead they issued a psychiatric evaluation, which later ruled and defined by the laws of Oklahoma, that Ron Williams was not competent to stand trial due to his inability to understand the charges against him, the inability to assist his attorney, and that he could not attain mental competency. Within his psychiatric hospitalization he was given medication for insomnia, hallucinations, delusions, hyperactivity, combativeness, and hyper-energy phase of manic depression. However, Ron’s ruling that he was mentally incompetent by court order was never adjudicated to be competent. This led to an unjust trial and later contributed to his trial against Debbie Carter. On the night of the Carter murder, Ron William had been home all night according to his mother’s journal entry.
But due to his prior record with the accusations of two prior rapes, Ron was asked if he knew Debbie Carter. He was shown a picture of her and was willing to provide hair and fingerprint samples to the police. He was also asked later during the investigation to submit a saliva sample, of which he provided to the police, along with Dennis, who also submitted fingerprints and hair samples. Ron willingly took a polygraph test to attempt to prove his innocence, of which came back inconclusive. Being said, the OSBI completed the fingerprint analysis of both men and Debbie Carter, conclusively stating that the fingerprints did not match anything at the sight of the murder. Concluding the forensic evaluation, this should have proven innocence for both men, but Ron was seen as the primary suspect for the crime due to his prior engagements with the law and his proximity to Debbie Carter’s house. However, the police never once checked in with the witnesses they interviewed and referenced stories. Glen Gore was asked to make a statement to the police, where he denied any involvement with the Debbie Carter murder. Being said, he did mention that he had seen Debbie at the Coach-light just hours before she was killed. She had been uncomfortable on the dance floor and had asked Glen to dance with her to avoid Ron. Nonetheless, no one else had mentioned that they had seen Ron at
the Coach-light that night, so the police “were to paste together a case against him” (148). This is a case of the “blame validation” vantage, in which a person is blamed for a crime due to an exaggeration of the strength of evidence that results in a blame attribution, a deemphasis of contradictory evidence, or a change in the threshold for the acceptable strength of evidence needed to assign blame to the suspect. This suggests that people adhere to the culpable control model, which assumes that people generally comply with cultural prescriptions to assigning blame but are influenced by the community and the people and behavior of the persons involved in the evaluation. When a person is charged with a crime they have the right to file for pretrial motions seeking favorable rulings on the admissibility of specific evidence. Some rulings include, a motion for separate trials, a motion to sever counts, motion to suppress a confession or other statement by the defendant, a motion in limine, and in this trial, the attorney should have ruled for a motion in a change of venue. This would have eliminated the biases that the community and therefor the jury had against Ron Williams and Dennis when it came to their prior charges against them and history of criminal acts. Unfortunately, in the small town of Ada, the probability of a juror not hearing any details about the crime prior to the trial and pretrial hearings is almost impossible. This could have possibly led to biases on the jury stand. Ron William’s polygraph came back as inconclusive. However, the validity of a polygraph is about 65% accurate. This is due to the inability to distinguish emotions like fear and nervousness. The questions asked to the suspects are often not standardized, meaning the prosecuting team can ask directly stimulating questions to make the suspect nervous and trigger the exam as a false positive. In many states across the United States, it is made known that if a defendant passes the exam, then the charges against them will be dropped or that the exam may be referenced throughout a trial. In contrast, persons taking the test can also forge the exam by taking countermeasures to avoid detection. Conclusively, the men that were charged and punished for the murders within the small town of Ada, were wrongfully accused due to improper forensic science and prosecution processes. As a result of the prosecutors and community placing blame on these four men due to the lack of forensic evidence and prior wrong doings in the eyes of the court, these men were placed on death row and experienced near executions.
According to the Innocence Project (2006), “On September 17, 2001, Chad wrote the Innocence Project in New York, which, in 2003, enlisted pro bono counsel from Holland & Knight to file a motion for DNA testing on Tina’s fingernail scrapings.” The state had tested the DNA that was under Tina’s nail from the first case but at that time it was inadequate and could not be tested. It was not until now that we have the technology capable enough to test it. In June 2004, the test came back negative to matching both Jeremey and Chain Heins but did come from an unknown male. The state argued that it was not enough to overturn the conviction so Chad’s attorney asked the state to do some further testing and to compare the DNA from under the fingernails to the hairs that was found on Tina’s body. It was in 2005 that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that there was a match between the DNA under Tina’s nail and the pubic hair. According to LaForgia (2006), “this particular type of DNA, the report stated, was found in only about 8 percent of Caucasian American men.” During this process there was a new piece of evidence that Chad’s attorney had learned about during the appeals process, a fingerprint. There were some accusations that the prosecutors never disclosed this information about this third fingerprint and if they did it was too late. The jurors did not even know about this fingerprint and if they did this could have changed the whole case. This fingerprint was found on several objects that included the smoke detector, a piece of glass, and the bathroom sink. It was soon discovered that this fingerprint matched with the DNA found on the bedsheets that Tina was on. This was finally enough evidence to help Chad Heins become exonerated in
When trying to describe Dan Locallo as a compassionate judge one could use the Tony Cameron, the Larry Bates and the Frank Caruso Jr. criminal cases. Tony Cameron has been in jail for only five months. He was arrested for armed robbery in August of 1997. Cameron has an inner conflict that he keeps fighting-whether or not he wants to plead guilty or not guilty (Courtroom 302, 26). Tony Cameron realizes that if he wants to present his case to the judge he better make it a good one. Most offenders that visit the courthouse feel like...
Returning to the judicial world of the Bronx Family Court as a judge, after years of working in administration, Judge Richard Ross is astonished to find a distinctly more disjointed situation than the one he left. As he attempts to live out his life as “both the fact finder and arbiter of the law” it is clear the current judicial system does not serve him well (xv). Judge Ross conveys to the reader the fundamental issues of the Family Court system through his day to day happenings which range from endless caseloads to death threats. The use of personal experience is effective in adding credibility to more clearly convey his point that not only the Judges, but the case workers, 18-B attorneys, and various legal aides are overworked to a point
On March 25, 1931 nine African American youths were falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned for the rape of two white girls. Over the next six consecutive years, trials were held to attempt to prove the innocence of these nine young men. The court battles ranged from the U.S Supreme court to the Scottsboro county court with almost every decision the same---guilty. Finally, with the proceedings draining Alabama financially and politically, four of the boys ...
The Insanity Plea is a book about the Uses & Abuses of the Insanity Defense in
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, the
It was a mistaken identity case where the distressed raped women picked out the wrong black man. Even though the conviction was overturned due to DNA evidence, a mistaken eyewitness testimony led to a wrongful conviction that the Burlington Police upheld without question due to prejudice feelings toward determine Ronald Cotton (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo 283). Ronald had his whole family testify that he had been home the night Jennifer was raped however because he had mixed up his dates when he originally confessed that police assumed he was lying despite what he and his family said. The other indication of racism on the police force was when the second rape victim did not pick Ronald Cotton out of the physical lineup; she claimed she was terrified of the black men standing in front of her and just needed to leave, even though she knew it saw Ronald that had raped her (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo 129). Ronald was believed to be guilty and was trying to prove his innocence from the beginning. This simply cannot occur in a justice system where one is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty; racism played a part in convicting this innocent man. Even during the second court case when he was trying to prove his innocence he remembered feeling the jury turn and look at him, "every single one of their white faces" believed how terrible of a man he was (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton and Torneo
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
The book Murder in the Bayou: Who Killed the Women Known as the Jeff Davis 8?, written by independent journalist and private investigator Ethan Brown, tells the horrific true story of the bayou town of Jennings, Louisiana located in the heart of the Jefferson Davis parish. During the four year duration between 2005 and 2009, the town of Jennings was on edge after the discovery of the bodies of eight murdered women were found in the filthy canals and swamps. The victims became known as the “Jeff Davis 8.” For years, local law enforcement suspected a serial killer, and solely investigated the murders based on that theory alone. The victims were murdered in varying manors, but when alive they all shared many commonalities and were connected to
In addition, the jury fails to recognize the disabilities and special circumstances that would prohibit some of the men from being physically able to commit the crime because of their racial prejudice. As the documentary explains, “Two of them are 13 years old at the time the incident took place. One of them was blind. One of them had syphilis and simply couldn’t have had sexual intercourse” (Scottsboro Boys: An American Tragedy). Even as the defense presents these indisputable facts, the jury fails to look past their racial bias of protecting white women to see the disabilities that prove the innocence of the four men. They remain locked away in jail for over six years, until the fourth trial where the court of Alabama recognizes the prejudice-filled verdict and real change occurs, as the new innocent verdict brings justice to the four Scottsboro boys’. The jury reviews the disabilities and acknowledges the undeniable fact that they are not physically capable of rape. As for the other five defendants remaining in custody, the jury cannot look past the color of their skin, even as the defense mentions the abnormality of half of the defendants being guilty and half
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
The Twelve Angry Men was about a boy who was accused of stabbing his father to death in a argument. In the beginning of the trial all twelve of the juror's voted guilty. Many of the juror's were mean and did not care about the boy's future they just wanted to get the trial over with so the juror's can do what they wanted to do. Later in the case one of the juror's realized they were messing with a boys life and his future was all up to them. So a juror realized that some of the information that a witness brought up had to be false. So they analyzed the information and came to the conclusion that the boy could not have stabbed his father the way he did because one of the juror's had seen many knife fight's in his backyard and you can not stab someone downward with a switchblade. Also another witness said that the knife that the kid had could be bought anywhere. The juror's discriminated the boy because he lived in the slums , he has a criminal record and he was always fighting with his dad so they just assumed he was the one that killed his dad.
While talking to the police, the women accused all of the black men of raping them. These women were known prostitutes of the area, but their word was still taken over the black men who were accused. Twelve days later, the trial took place. There were many witnesses that held bias towards the black men. One acquaintance of the women was a white lady who refused to support the lies that were coming out of the white women's mouths.
The criminal justice system takes on a pivotal role in pursuing and preventing crimes in society. When a suspect is caught and then faced with charges for a violent crime, they legally have the right to a fair trial. In order for a criminal proceeding to successfully take place, the defendant must be fully aware of their surroundings, have a basic understanding of court procedures, as well as being capable of defending their one case. Competency to stand trial (CST) is essential for maintaining fairness in the courtroom and producing a just verdict. However, if a defendant is unable to understand legal proceedings due to mental illness or impairment, they must be thoroughly assessed and evaluated before declared incompetent to stand trial. Carrying out a case with a defendant who lacks mental capacity causes numerous issues because the individual is incapable of supplying their lawyers with information regarding their crime or any of the witness testimonies at trial. Lack of comprehensible communication between a defendant and attorney forces an ineffective defense in the case. Mental disturbances in the defendant that may cause disorderly conduct in the court room are considered disruptive and weaken the authority of the legal system. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with competency to stand trial issues over the years have made significant rulings, which have stressed the importance of identifying whether or not a defendant is in fact incompetent.
Insanity, automatism and diminished responsibility all play a significant role in cases where the defendant’s mind is abnormal while committing a crime. The definition of abnormal will be reviewed in relationship to each defence. In order to identify how these three defences compare and contrast, it is first important to understand their definition and application. The appropriate defence will be used once the facts of the cases have been distinguished and they meet the legal tests. The legal test of insanity is set out in M’Naghten’s Case: “to establish a defence…of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.” To be specific, the defect of reason arises when the defendant is incapable of exercising normal reasoning. The defect of reason requires instability in reasoning rather than a failure to exercise it at a time when exercise of reason is possible. In the case of R v Clarke, the defendant was clinically depressed and in a moment of absent-mindedness, stole items from a supermarket...