A. Re Opening Statements: The Prosecution has the job of proving that the defendant, Jordan Bratton committed murder in the first degree by killing the victim, Preston Balmen. The evidence that they have which supports their case is as follows. The police found that there were tire tracks behind Preston Balmen’s house, which matched the tires on Jordan Bratton’s car: a maroon 1990’s Buick Century. It was determined by a medical examiner that Preston Balmen had been strangled to death with a cord-like object and that a microphone cord found in Jordan Bratton’s car is most likely the weapon that was used to strangle the victim. The examiner also determined by the way the victim was strangled, that the suspected murderer stood at a similar …show more content…
A 3-count package of brown cotton gloves was found in the trunk of Jordan Bratton’s car, with 1 of the 3 pairs missing. The medical examiner determined that fibers found under the victim’s fingernails were most likely from the same type of gloves found in Jordan Bratton’s car. A witness saw Jordan Bratton’s car follow Preston Balmen out of the Hollyville Coffee Shop parking lot on April 13, 2009. Jordan Bratton sent a suggestively threatening message to Preston Balmen on the review site, “YellUp” if Balmen did not take down his negative review of Bratton. Jordan Bratton made a Twitter post on April 13th that he was going to “kill tonight and shut up the critics once and for all.” The prosecution can use this evidence to show that Jordan Bratton had a motive for killing Preston Balmen and given the quantity and types of evidence, they can try to persuade jurors that the findings of the investigation were not coincidental. They must convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Jordan Bratton was responsible …show more content…
Bratton also told Howard some suggestively violent statements directed toward Balmen. Howard should say that Bratton made such statements like “someone should shut him up” and “the world is better off without filthy liars like him” in regards to Balmen. This is important because the prosecution can show jurors that Bratton wanted to permanently silence Balmen, and had been suggesting it well before the murder. Howard should also say that Bratton assaulted one of his audience members during one of his shows after the audience member started making offensive comments towards Bratton. This is important because it shows that Bratton has a history of using violence against anyone who heckled or criticized him and can suggest to the jury that he was capable of doing it again. Howard should add about how he saw Bratton’s suggestive twitter posts on the night of Balmen’s murder. Bratton wrote that he was going to “kill tonight and shut up the critics once and for all.” This is important because it is similar to the statements that Bratton made to Howard about how someone should shut up Balmen. The prosecution can show jurors that Bratton had already said the same thing to Howard, but was now willing to carry out the act of shutting up Balmen himself. Howard’s testimony is important because it shows that Bratton has a violent past and
Prosecutor: Hunter O’Hotto Case Number: 102938 Objective: Provide convincing evidence that Gene is guilty of second-degree manslaughter in the death of Phineas. Gene is guilty of second-degree manslaughter for the death of Phineas, which means his death could have been voluntary or involuntary. I believe, as should the rest of you in the court, that Gene is guilty of involuntary manslaughter of Phineas, his best friend, and it is proven with a surplus of evidence. This evidence includes: Gene’s actions leading up to Finny’s first fall, which inevitably lead to his death, and Gene’s thoughts after Finny’s death.
A soon-to-be father who lived near the shooting, Register had a confirmed alibi of being at the unemployment office that morning, and yet somehow he was labeled guilty of first-degree murder (Bazelon). At the same time as Register's arrest, a hesitant Anderson explained to the prosecutor that it was possible she had been confused during the identification because Register was her former classmate (Bazelon). She also mentioned that she had not seen the criminal very well as he scurried away from the scene (Bazelon). A law professor named Brandon Garrett reported that out of 75 percent of the 250 overturned convictions, more than one-half involved apprehensive eyewitnesses who gradually became confident in their decision (Bazelon). This was the case with Register and the two eyewitnesses who had the ability to impede his freedom with frayed "puppet strings."
Piette had been presented critical evidence in the case that clearly declared his client to be guilty, however, instead of debating he sat quietly and observed. Every time the judge would question the defense comments on the presented evidence, Piette would simply say that his client took no side. Despite what Lieutenant Piette was thinking, he knew that it would be extremely dangerous to the case if he began to debate. Piette’s strategy cause yet again more controversy in the legal field. An Air Force major that was in the court believed that Piette’s strategy was immodest.
In reviewing the Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), we review the allegation of the violation of the Eighth Amendment in the trial court’s use of cruel and unusual punishment in its sentencing of Christopher Simmons; who was a juvenile at the time of the crime; to a sentence of death. In reviewing the facts of the case, we find that Christopher Simmons, then 17 and a junior in high school, along with Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned the commission of a burglary with the intent to commit murder under the perception that they were minors and as such would be able to get away with the crimes. Upon his capture, Simmons, admitted to the crimes and provided law enforcement with the details of the crimes. Because of his age and the nature of the crime, Simmons was considered to be
O’Connor, Prosecutor for the People, argued that the defendant, Robert Jefferson was guilty of Burglary in the Third Degree. Mr. O’Connor argued that there was an eye witness who could place Jefferson at the crime scene. Mr. O’Connor called Arthur Cooper to the stand for questioning. “Q. Now, will you just state what you did, when you got up to the apartment, and who you saw there, if anybody? A.
The case of Hae Min Lee’s cold-blooded murder is a long and complicated story; one that takes twelve episodes of a podcast to discuss and theorize, and seventeen episodes of another podcast to present all the evidence found related to the case. Who could have possibly killed this talented, kindhearted person? Who could have been sociopathic enough to strangle an innocent seventeen-year-old girl to death in her car? There is no way to absolutely prove that anyone committed this awful crime, even Adnan Syed, the one who has been incarcerated for it and who ultimately took the responsibility. This was almost entirely based on the extraordinarily unreliable testimony of one person: Jay Wildes.
This scene shows that though the court of law sees Cates as guilty, publicly influenced Brady’s thoughts and showed him his final position. Public opinion influencing the court of law can also be seen in the real world in the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case was when three Duke Lacrosse players were arrested for a false report of them sexually assaulting another student at a party. They offered to let them take their DNA and take lie detector tests, and they took their DNA but denied them taking a lie detector test. They also had photo proof that the accuser was already injured before coming to the party.
The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt.
Partisanship and Misconceptions Introduction The saying “the pen is mightier than the sword” is widely known and referenced. However, contrary to popular belief, actions may speak louder than words. This rings true in the case of Michelle Carter, this specific case has been a reoccurring debate, in terms of whether Michelle Carter should be found guilty or not guilty for the death of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III.
For more than 2 hours OJ held the cops on a low-speed chase, holding a gun to his head after leaving a suicide note at home. Finally, at nearly 10 pm, OJ turned himself into the police. OJ Simpson’s trial was one of the first to use DNA evidence which was then used to prove he was at the scene of the murder. However, OJ’s defense team “The Dream Team” had more in store for the prosecution. The trial that had started out as a double homicide had turned into something more, a trial of race and police brutality.
The 9 boys convicted of the rape of Victoria Price and Ruby Bates were guilty. These boys were guilty because Victoria Price identified that 6 of the 9 boys were the boys who raped her. When Clarence Norris who was one of the boys convicted called the women liars a guard proceeded to beat him with a bayonet. He did not have a chance to
He was bitter and didn’t value any human life except his own. He thought the boy was guilty because the color of his skin. Juror number ten said “Most of them”
The people’s sympathy and concern for this young man’s life was the main goal in this murder trial. When he convinces the other jurors to talk it over for another hour, Juror eight also exemplifies the foot-in-the-door approach. In additional to the above tactics, he
8: I think that… as a juror… we have to really think, we have to think about all the evidence, about all the outcomes. Well if I voted guilty at the initial vote, we would’ve let the boy die but as a juror being given jury duty… one of the highest duties of citizenship… is a big duty and being trusted and chosen to have a person’s life in your hands is just way too much pressure to handle and is one of the hardest things to do in your own lifetime and a one of a lifetime experience that you will just never forget. I would say that a case like this takes so much time and needs to have a proper moral to end up with the right
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence