Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Evidence at the crime scene
Casey Anthony’s case introduction
Crime investigation and evidence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Evidence at the crime scene
The Casey Anthony trial has been arguably the most controversial case since the trial of O.J. Simpson and has been speculated over ever since the verdict had been given in July of 2011. It was decided by a jury of her peers that Anthony was not guilty of murder, for the death of her daughter Caylee. Many believe that Anthony should have been found guilty however, very little Americans actually comprehend the justice system.
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
…show more content…
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding …show more content…
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
The Casey Anthony case was one that captured the heart of thousands and made it to the headline of national TV talk shows, newspapers, radio stations and social media networks for months. The root of the case was due to a clash between the parental responsibilities, the expectations that went with being a parent, and the life that Casey Anthony wanted to have. The case was in respect to the discovering the cause of Casey’s two-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony’s, death; however the emphasis was placed on Casey and her futile lies, which resulted in a public outcry. The purpose of this essay is to delve into the public atmosphere and inquire about why the media and social media collectively attacked the case by uncovering the content of the case, the charges that were laid, and later dismissed, the “performers” of the trial and the publics reaction. It will further discuss how it defies universal ideologies and how the media represents this. The discussion of the complexities of the case and its connotations will incorporate Stuart Hall’s Representation and the Media, Robert Hariman’s Performing the Laws, What is Ideology by Terry Eagleton, The Body of the Condemned by Michael Foucault, and a number of news articles, which will reveal disparate ideas of representation in the media, and the role of the performers of the law and their effect on the understanding of the case.
The horrific murder of the beautiful Nicole Brown Simpson was one that had shocked the world. The story of her murder has been told all across the nation on television, in newspapers, and across the internet. During the initial investigation to attempt to find out who had stabbed her to death, an impossible person was accused of the crime. Many clues and significant pieces of evidence found by police officers and crime scene investigators point to Nicole Brown Simpson’s obvious killer: O.J. Simpson.
The collective memory of OJ Simpson is difficult to judge because many people today feel he should have been found guilty and others do not. It is important to say that the OJ Simpson murder trial was one of the largest media frenzies in history and it has been shown throughout history that the media can have a lot of power on our collective memory of events and people as shown by the American Revolution, Vietnam and various other events.
The judge will conduct an evaluation evidence competency however, the jury can decide doing deliberation that a specific item or witness lacks credibility, in so doing refusing to consider it. In order to have the full understanding of evidence one need to understand the definition of relevance according to Federal Rules of Evidence. There are several reason evidence may be found to be lega...
The O.J. Simpson case has been hailed "The Trial of the Century. " One of the longest running court trials in history, this case was filled with conspiracy, controversy, and the power of celebrity. The biggest part of the trial was the evidence. The submission of the blood samples, the DNA testing, and the articles of clothing made the case for what it was. Amidst all the accusations of planted evidence and conspiracy plans against Simpson, the jury and Judge Ito had to try to sift through and find Simpson guilty or not guilty.
“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” a statement which was used by Johnnie Cochran. A
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutor will make his case first by calling and examining
The Casey Anthony trial was one of those important cases. Anthony was accused of brutally murdering her daughter in 2008. The case received attention from journalists, bloggers and (of course) national news ne...
proven guilty and to be proved guilty it must be done beyond reasonable doubt or
When people think or hear of a mystery case it gets their suspicions going more than likely. Many people have heard or know about the O.J. Simpson case and agree or disagree with the outcome that was settled. Most people believe that O.J. Simpson is guilty, yet the jury found him not guilty. Clearly, these facts indicate that the O.J. Simpson Case continues to confound researchers in today’s society. By realizing the essential facts surrounding this mystery and investigating the various theories regarding the case, one can see that the most obvious answer to this mystery is the amount of money that was involved, popularity, and the attorney to defend O.J.
Plain error can help a substantive right angle in the defense for the introduction of improper presentation. In the battle of inadmissible evidence a jury trial will be deemed necessary for the case. The jury case will ultimately provide the possibility of any evidence to be thrown out and therefore should take notice to plain error. The main predominance in this case suggest that even though evidence was found to be exclusively vital to the case it can also be legally fought for the evidence to be inadmissible. For example, Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 236 “police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of
In a criminal investigation, evidence is the key to the existence of facts or circumstances that can determine the innocence or guilt of an accused during a criminal investigation and trial. There are several categories of evidence that are significant in a criminal investigation, but differ in their forms. These include physical evidence, demonstrative evidence, direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In this presentation the major types of evidence will be defined, how they are important to an investigation, how they help the triers of fact determine what is credible, and whether overwhelming circumstantial evidence is enough to obtain a conviction.
Trial by jury is a unique feature of the United Sates’ democracy which guarantees every citizen in criminal and civil proceedings the right to a trial by an impartial jury. Jurors are afforded the responsibility of rendering a verdict based solely on the evidence and testimony presented at the trial while simultaneously ignoring irrelevant factors (i.e., extralegal factors). Such verdicts have the potential to impact the lives of the alleged victims, the defendants, and the public through future interpretations of the law. A central question, then, is to what degree do juries render verdicts based on the evidence presented at the trial versus extralegal factors that should be extraneous (Devine & Caughin, 2014).
"The closing statement by the prosecution ends the adversarial portion of the trial"(Bohm & Haley, 2014, p. 314). After closing statements, the judge directs the jurors pertaining to the standards of the law, the charges, the rules of evidence along with possible verdict, to be used to determine guilty or innocent. The judge will also explain to the jury that it must be satisfied with the guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" (Bohm, & Haley, 2014, p. 315). Beyond reasonable doubt means that if there are two reasons given in a case and both are possible explanation for what happened, taken together with the evidence presented, the jury should give the benefit of the doubt, the jury will then retire to deliberate, to consider all evidence, in a place of total privacy, to reach a ruling or decision. Assuming a conviction, a verdict of guilt, the judge either sentence the defendant on the spot or set sentencing for another
Simpson Fast Facts) the jury released the final verdict. Simpson was “not guilty”. (FamousTrials.com) Because they broadcasted the trial for all of America to see, the citizens all had very strong opinions concerning the case. So, the moment that the jury released the verdict, one half of America was rejoicing while the other half was mourning. To this day, the O.J. Simpson trial continues to divide our country. No one but O.J. Simpson will ever truly know what happened on June 12th, 1994. Even though most people only focus on whether or not the jury made the right decision, that wasn’t the only aspect of this trial. As sad or uncomfortable as it may have been, this trial changed our country forever. After the trial ended, our government decided that it was best that cameras were not allowed in courtrooms in hope that trials would remain more authentic. It showed that no matter how much evidence you have, you must prepare to back that evidence up in court. Most importantly it brought light to the fact that America was still struggling with racial problems among our citizens; and taught us all to be a little more causiouswhen believing everything that the media shows