Case Analysis: The Wrongful Conviction of Steven Avery. Mr. Avery, at the age of 22, was convicted of sexual assault and attempted murder in 1985 in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. The victim, Penny Beerntsen, was brutally attacked while jogging on a beach. Based on her identification, Avery was arrested, despite having an alibi supported by numerous witnesses. Avery was convicted and sentenced to 32 years in prison. The primary evidence against Mr. Avery was the victim's eyewitness identification. The victim, Mrs. Beerntsen, was in the lineup, but unfortunately, Mr. Avery stood out, which led to improper police procedures and mistaken identification. Further investigation led to finding out there was a lack of physical evidence; there was no connection linking Mr. Avery to the crime scene, but despite that information, all focus was on Mr. Avery, ignoring any other leads. The investigation also struggled to validate and corroborate any of Mr. Avery’s witnesses, but they were not acknowledged at all. The prosecution relied solely on the victim's misidentification of Mr. Avery, despite the discrepancies in the evidence. Evidence that could have exonerated Mr. Avery, which included another suspect with similarities to Mr. Avery’s, was not taken into account. When reading back into my notes, I realized that the prosecution …show more content…
This reduces the likelihood of suggestive influence (Wells et al., 1998). Investigations should prioritize gathering corroborative evidence, including physical and forensic evidence, to support eyewitness testimony. Law enforcement officials should receive training on the risks of cognitive bias and the importance of maintaining objectivity in investigations. Courts should allow for post-conviction DNA testing in cases where new forensic evidence is
In the Forensic case #356228, the skeletal remains found in January 2009 in a deer hunting area were those of a black male greater than the age of 45. The jury felt based upon the evidence provided that the skeletal remains found were that of Robert Rutherford and the accused, John O’Hara was guilty as charged. The incidence was speculated to have happened around four years ago, when the defendant and the victim were in a quarrel over the hunting area. Due to the fact that John O’Hara went to confession more in February 2009, indicated that he had a guilty conscience. John O’Hara was known for hunting in the area and based on the evidence provided the jury speculated that he shot Robert Rutherford possibly from his deer stand, resulting in his death.
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
...idence in the conviction of Melanie McGuire. According to Champod (2004), Beth Dunton may have skipped important steps necessary to collecting fingerprints from the trash bags. If fingerprints had been collected from the trash bags, this could have cleared Melanie or added to the mountain of evidence against her. According to Rossmo (2009), all of the circumstantial evidence gathered by investigators could have been declared coincidental. There was no “smoking gun” to convict Melanie. Despite possible errors, the investigative team was successful in remaining free of bias being that the evidence collected by two different investigative teams led to Melanie McGuire as the suspect and ultimately to her conviction. Human error is inevitable while conducting investigation, but ultimately a jury of peers found Melanie McGuire guilty of the alleged crimes (Glatt, 2008).
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
The court must find more evidence and not to depend on eyewitness testimony and to look for the best people as possible. Besides, there more evidence that DNA testing. Eyewitness must be proven in order to arrest the right suspect and question the suspect to get more evidence in steady of keeping in prison for false witness. The police for tracking everywhere the suspect went and people the suspect contact with that time. It will solve the problem by asking the eyewitness question and the suspect questions to see if both things they said
Ronald Cotton was convicted of burglary in the first degree and rape in the first degree after Jennifer Thompson accused him as her attacker. On July 28, 1984, Jennifer Thompson was rape a knifepoint.
(Kennedy & Haygood, 1992; Williams & Loftus, 1994), which is worrying considering the growing and substantial body of evidence from laboratory studies, field studies, and the criminal justice system supporting the conclusion that eyewitnesses frequently make mistakes (Cutler & Penrod, 1995; Huff, 1987; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Small, Penrod, Malpass, Fulero, & Brimacombe, 1998). According to a number of studies, eyewitness misidentifications are the most common cause of wrongful convictions (Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1986; Wells et al., 1998; Yarmey, 2003) and, through the use of forensic DNA testing, have been found to account for more convictions of innocent individuals than all other factors combined (Innocence Project, 2009; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006).
With his many conversations with his family, there is an abundance of “Oh”’s and “Yeah”’s littered in their phone calls. Although some may see this as an indication of a lower class or lack of education, the banality of these filler words seem to cast doubt in the viewer’s mind. Following Avery’s second accusation of raping and killing Teresa Halbach, the plan that the prosecution presents almost seems too complex and too dastardly for a common man whose conversations are incredibly simple. Because the previous episodes that document his resolved first case establishes his lovable oaf personality, the viewer almost wants to believe that the simple minded Avery is innocent. A person with surface knowledge of the Avery family and the previous case may assume him to be taking advantage of the idea of feigned ignorance, but his simple sentences and overall aloofness in his phone calls contrasts the idea of a clever and despicable mastermind. Moreover, because the documentary seems to antagonize the Manitowoc justice system, there is an underlying feeling of hope where the viewer wants to see the simple hero (Avery) triumph over the overbearing force that has demonized and shown malicious intent to, “end the gene pool here”(Ep. 10). This underdog attempt to clear his name is appealing to the audience
Have you ever been accused of something you didn't do? If so have you spent time in jail for it? Well think about not doing something and not having any proof to prove you didn't do it because there wasn't DNA testing or getting accused of it knowing you didn't do it.
The officers tampered with evidence and made a false discovery that he was the person and that is how he was convicted (Innocent Project N.D.). Many forensic methods have been implemented in research when looking for evidence, but the methods that are not scientific and have little or nothing to do with science. The result of false evidence by other means leads to false testimony by a forensic analyst. Another issue with forensic errors is that it is a challenge to find a defense expert (Giannelli, 2011).
Eyewitnesses are primarily used by the criminal justice system for investigating and prosecuting crimes, particularly in circumstances where it is the only evidence available (Wells & Olson, 2003). Their testimony is highly regarded as it allows for police, prosecutors, judges and juries to establi...
This same article examines the history of DNA evidence and acknowledges that when evidence was first introduced to the courts that the new type of identification was initially accepted without any challenges, however, critics quickly contended that DNA tests were problematic because of the reliability and the validity of probative value of the evidence. For example, DNA exoneration cases suggest that errors in forensic identification led to a high number of wrongful convictions and concerns that media coverage portrayals of forensic science evidence on popular television shows leads jurors to unfairly weigh DNA evidence while making their decision about the facts of a trial (Carrell, 2008). Moreover, in recent DNA exoneration cases the courts and jurors had difficulty analyzing the testimony of the experts on forensic identification evidence. According to the article, in 86 DNA exoneration cases, forensic science testing errors were the second leading cause of wrongful conviction, falling behind wrongful eyewitness misidentification (Carrell,
However, eyewitness testimony can play a beneficial part in the criminal justice system if factors such as police procedures are controlled under the strict guidelines. It should be kept in mind though, that even if all the social aspects mentioned are completely controlled, there still remains the possibility that errors will continue to occur due to memory recall errors, and overly emotional witnesses who simply wish to see someone punished for their crimes. But regardless of this fact, there would undoubtedly be a remarkable recovery from the present 45% wrongful conviction rate as displayed within many studies.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
Staphylococcus aureus, usually known as the ‘golden staph,’ is a very common pathogenic bacterium that is most commonly found on skin. [1] It is a Gram and catalase positive organism. It’s usually habitant is on the skin and a majority of individual’s noses and respiratory tract. S. aureus is one of the most important pathogen in today’s society as it can cause mild to severe infections amongst humans. S. aureus can enter the human body by a cut or severe scratch into the skin.