The Archbishop Rushman Case Study

885 Words2 Pages

C. CHARGES
The crime was committed in the archbishop’s apartment and then Aaron was found running away from the scene of the crime with blood all over his clothes. Aaron is charged with first degree murder.

Before the start of the trial, a discovery period was performed, in which both prosecution and defense tried to accumulate evidence. All the forensic evidences were brought up in court by the prosecution. Blood, footprints, fingerprints and other were used to prove that Aaron was guilty.

The blood on his clothes was analyzed and was proven to be the archbishop’s blood. Therefore, the first piece of evidence used by the prosecution is the DNA evidence. In addition, Aaron’s fingerprints were found at the crime scene, as well on the murder …show more content…

So the motive of the crime was unknown. Therefore, in front of this information, the defense created the idea that there was someone else in the room. Since then, Vail will keep trying to convince the jury that Aaron did not commit the murder, but a third person that was in the room.

Convincing the jury
Convincing the jury is the main purpose of the trial, so make the jury believe that the defense’s story is the correct one. Vail supports his plea by trying to persuade the jury that this third party, supposedly left-handed, could have murdered archbishop Rushman by using gloves and erased his footprints and having left the murder weapon in Aaron’s hand. This view of the facts would prove Aaron’s innocence.

The prosecuting attorney holds the burden of proof and has to prove that Aaron is completely guilty and does not exist third party or other possible explanation of the murder. If the jury has a reasonable doubt about it, Vail and his client Aaron will have won the case. Therefore, Vail’s goal is to place an element of reasonable doubt on the …show more content…

This is a technique that “predicts that jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant. Consequently, they will be less likely to convict”. Vail refers to the members of the jury’s children or friends with similar-aged as Aaron. The purpose is to make the members of the jury more sensitive toward Aaron, or at least, increasing the possibility of a reasonable doubt in the case. In addition, Vail wants to take advantage of Aaron’s “boyscout” look and that is why does not want Aaron to talk during the trial until the psychological evaluation is done.

The photos show the scene of the crime, in which archbishop Rushman has been stabbed 78 times and his fingers have been cut off. Therefore, Vail attempts for the court to not show these pictures. These pictures will have a negative impact as they will shock the jurors and will influence the jury’s final decision, since it will be based on a punitive purpose. Taking into account the brutality and sadistic way of dying, the photos can hurt the case and the defense’s strategy.

Expert in psychology
As long as the judge does not allow the defense attorney to begin the trial with a psychological test, Vail looks for an expert in psychology. He needs the expert, in order to properly analyze Aaron’s mental

Open Document