Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How DNA might be useful to solving crime
Crime investigation and evidence
How DNA might be useful to solving crime
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How DNA might be useful to solving crime
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
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act. In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she still was alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence. All in all, despite the lack of concrete evidence, the prosecution team was able to provide facts that illustrated a timeline of events that could fill in the gaps of the
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.
In this single moment of clarity, he is convinced that the old man is distorting the truth. He says “... He was dragging his left leg and trying to hide it because he was ashamed. I think I know him better than anyone here. This is a quiet, frightened, insignificant old man who has been nothing all his life, who has never had recognition… This is very important. It would be so hard for him to recede into the background…”(page 36) Sharing this argument, juror number nine shifts the direction of the discussion. No longer is he speaking about facts and evidence, but about an emotional connection to an old man who wants to feel important for once in his life. Although he is just assuming this based off of context clues, he manages to affect the other jurors. He manages to question the validity of the old man's testimony by connecting with him at a personal level, and for the most part it's
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Because Simpson was the prime suspect, the judge legally ordered searches on O.J’s house as well as the crime scene. The goal was to find proof that he did commit the crime, by finding DNA or items. Shortly after the searches and tests began, evidence was found. DNA from the crime scene matched the DNA of O.J. Although proof was found, Simpson continued to plead not guilty. Surprisingly enough, O.J st...
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
Juror #1 originally thought that the boy was guilty. He was convinced that the evidence was concrete enough to convict the boy. He continued to think this until the jury voted the first time and saw that one of the jurors thought that the boy was innocent. Then throughout the movie, all of the jurors were slowly convinced that the boy was no guilty.
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.
The evidence discovered during the investigation suggested to the police that OJ Simpson may have had something to do with this murder and they obtained an arrest warrant. The investigators believed that they “knew” OJ Simpson committed the murders. His lawyers and him were informed of the arrest warrant and agreed to a specified time when OJ would turn himself into authorities. Investigators are later admonished, by the defense, on how they handled the crime scene.
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
These two jurors are almost the plain opposite of each other. Juror 3 appears to be a very intolerant man accustomed of forcing his wishes and views upon others. On the other hand, Juror 8 is an honest man who keeps an open mind for both evidence and reasonable doubt. Since these two people are indeed very different, they both have singular thoughts relating to the murder case. Juror 8 is a man who is loyal to justice. In the beginning of the play, he was the only one to vote ‘not guilty’ the first time the twelve men called a vote. Although his personality is reflected on being a quiet, thoughtful, gentle man, he is still a very persistent person who will fight for justice to be done. Juror 8 is a convincing man who presents his arguments well, but can also be seen as manipulative. An example would be when he kept provoking Juror 3 until he finally said “I’m going to kill you" to Juror 8. He did this because he wanted to prove that saying "I’ll kill you" doesn’t necessarily mean that Juror 3 was actually going to kill him. Juror 3 is a totally different character. He is a stubborn man who can be detected with a streak of sad...
In the novel, he acted like an innocent person because he claims he doesn 't remember murdering the Archbishop. When he was questioned about the murder, he stated that he witnessed someone else murdering the bishop. What followed was truly shocking, he revealed having symptoms of multiple personality disorder. In a case with a mentally incompetent person would be proven innocent and set free. Aaron succeeded in proving that he was a schizophrenic person, however this was all a sham. The scheme was that Aaron was to make it believable that he was mentally incompetent. This showed Aaron’s true unethical character, he was dishonest, manipulative, and he lacked integrity. Aaron portrayed the illusion of a mentally ill person, a character Martin told him to play in order to win the case. Aaron got away with the satisfaction of murdering the Archbishop and fooling Martin into believing he was innocent. The outcome shows how being unethical can be falsely beneficial but will cause more damage than there was to begin
How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh, stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes in a formal tone as she delves into a pool of various example trials used to explain visual evidence, along with specific quotes obtained from well-known lawyers and workers in the industry. This simply states the recurring idea that visual evidence is important.