In this trial, the defense possessed and emphasized the most important pieces of evidence, which included: the weak password to the Raider’s Facebook Page, Sherman’s inconsistent testimony, Sherman and Dousa’s falling out, Dousa allegedly leaving the party early, fingerprint match, and the time the victim ingested the rohypnol. The strongest piece of evidence of the six is the weak password to the Raider’s Facebook page (which is RAIDERS), demonstrating how the Facebook page could have been hacked. As a result, reasonable doubt is created in terms of Dousa posting the image himself because the high possibility of the account getting hacked means that anyone besides Dousa could have posted this photo on the internet without the plaintiff's consent. …show more content…
Juarez's diagnosis of the rohypnol being ingested around 10 pm proves to be an important piece of evidence in this case because it shows that in comparison to the time that Dousa was present at the party, it would have been difficult for Dousa to play a game of one-on-one basketball with Anderson and leave shortly all while Anderson’s cup was unattended and before he began drinking the spiked beverage. With Dr. Juarez's report, reasonable doubt is also conjured as it demonstrates the difficulty and unlikelihood that Dousa would be able to drug Anderson with the rohypnol and once again, shows the higher likelihood of another partygoer/student drugging Anderson. Consequently, this piece of evidence proves to be extremely important because it evinces and emphasizes how Dousa may not be guilty of drugging Anderson due to the limited time he stayed at the party juxtaposed with the ability to be around Anderson’s unguarded cup to drug him while he played basketball with Anderson. This crucial element therefore ranks as “Yeah, I’ll buy that” because it aids in creating reasonable doubt based on facts to Dousa’s guilt in relation to the case, but the report also suggested that Anderson may have been drugged prior to playing basketball with
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
The suspect of the two rapes was known to smoke cigarettes, wear white gloves, ride a bike, use a knife, wear shoes that had rubber soles, and have a flashlight. When Ronald Cotton went into the police station to start things out, they took the knife that he always carried out from his front right pocket. Once Detective Gauldin started to question him, Ron told Gauldin that he smoked Newports, which is a type of cigarette. After he was questioned multiple times, they showed him a pair of black canvas World Cup shoes. He said that his shoes insoles were falling apart, but they weren’t that beaten up when the police showed them to him. They then showed him a piece of material that came from his shoe, which was left in Jennifer Thompson’s apartment. After that, they then showed him a red flashlight and accused him of taking batteries from Mary’s house, the other rape
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
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.
“It isn’t so sweet to secede, as [they] thought it would be,” a union soldier wrote a letter to home and this is explaining the Sherman’s march to the sea. There is many conversely about Sherman’s march to the sea, some people say that his march was blown out of proportion and others say that it was needed for the Union to defeat the confederates in the what seems never ending war. Sherman’s March to the sea started on November 15, 1864 in Atlanta, Georgia and went all the way to Savannah, Georgia which ended on December 21, 1864. In those few weeks Sherman’s army marched with totaled war on their mind. Total war means total destruction of enemies territory; as 62,000 union soldiers marched to Savannah, they destroyed everything in their path. After December 21, Sherman’s army continued to march on to North and South Carolina. William T. Sherman tactic to
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
Sensitive subjects, everyone has had a run in with them, or at least came in contact with one and avoided it like the plague. Some can be handled rather easily; the initial starting of the conversation is tough to do. Then you have the plague scenarios, the painful deal with it yourself, or the excruciating deal with it directly with the person. Of course with this, the small talk, compliment, beating around the bush, then the actual issue is presented in a way with the person’s version of the least offensive approach. More than likely this person has thought of a hundred ways to say it, taking your feelings into consideration at every point. When it comes down to it, someone will be offended, possibly both depending on how it was
In Brave New World the social conditioning causes the characters to struggle with their acceptance of their place within society. In Sherman Alexie’s Blasphemy the hereditary ties to the modern and Indian culture causes a strife among the characters. In both works, characters such as Bernard and the narrator from The Toughest Indian in the World are seen to initially struggle with their self-identify through internal thought. However, their internal struggle soon seeps through to the exterior, which causes a defining act. I will argue that in both Blasphemy and Brave New World the characters cope with their identity crisis by internalizing everything until a breaking point is reached causing a defining moment which is something that is out
The defense succeeded at instilling reasonable doubt in the jurors’ minds. A major difference between the defense and prosecution, as stated by Dershowitz, was that the defense relied on factual evidence and scientific experts while the prosecution utilized witnesses that casted a shadow of doubt upon the whole jury (Dershowitz 97). Dershowitz claimed the prosecution knew they had falsities in their case, but kept them in order to win the case (Dershowitz 96). In all, though many people viewed Simpson as a guilty man, the allegations of police perjury and investigative errors allowed the defense to exploit and capitalize on the faults carried out by the prosecution and ultimately implant reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.
Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2013). Criminal evidence: Principles and cases (8th ed.).
In the discussion which follows, the function served by ‘evidence’ within the adversarial system will be considered. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material. Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead the discussion to the conclusion that the above statement is not sustainable
For Example, in a 2007 gang shooting of David Valadez, the court upheld Ronnie Tienda [Smiley] MySpace/Facebook postings as evidence to convict him for the Dallas freeway shootout and murder of Valadez . In this case, the internal content of Tienda’s MySpace/Facebook postings—photographs, comments, and music—was sufficient circumstantial evidence where the jury found that the social media accounts owned by Tienda were created and maintained by him
Defendant argues this alleged statement is nowhere in the officer reports or audio recordings. Regardless of this allegation is true, Officer Brooks alleges in her affidavit report that Ms. Hernandez did inform her of this same fact in their conversation. Either way, this information is likely inconsequential because it does nothing to negate the reasonable suspicion acquired by the officers from (1) witnessing Defendant drop off a woman known to law enforcement to be engaging in prostitution and (2) the officers detecting the smell of burnt marijuana from the car upon approach.
Circumstantial evidence can in no way conclusively address a defendant’s guilt or innocence. Barry Laughman was convicted of the rape and murder of his elderly neighbor in 1988 in Pennsylvania. The prosecution knew that the killer had type B blood (Dervan & Edkins, 2012). Mr. Laughman tested as type A. The prosecution, fully aware of the evidence, considered it only circumstantial evidence and not enough to exonerate Mr. Laughman. It was not until 2004 that additional DNA evidence was discovered that collectively, with the initial blood evidence, helped to exonerate Mr. Laughman (Dervan