Crime against a Person: In the court case, United States V. Wanoskia, the defendant was convicted by a jury of 2nd degree murder towards his wife, Linda Martinez. The defendant was a Native American. The crime occurred on April 8, 1984, where the defendant’s wife was shot in the head and killed. The defendant’s wife had been out earlier with her friend. The defendant wife’s friend, Menarco stated that Linda had an argument earlier in the day with her husband, Elward Roe Wanoskia. Linda later on headed home and argued with Wanoskia and after all that, Linda was shot. The defendant testified that his wife shot herself after the argument. At trial, the government sought to show by expert testimony and a demonstration that the defendant’s wife didn’t shoot herself. The demonstration was all based in the length of an individual’s arm to see how far away your arm can be to shoot yourself in the head. Based on the experiment, it revealed that it was literally impossible for someone to have shot themselves from the distance stated at trial, even for a tall person, who tends to have longer arms. The defendant’s primary challenge to the government was that there was insufficient evidence of his wife’s arm. This argument could be used to defend him, the accused one because in reality, there is no evidence …show more content…
Because of this, the defendant argued that the government’s use of demonstrative evidence was prejudicial and that his conviction violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause because if he wasn’t “Indian”, he would have been subjected to a minor and less harsh of a penalty under
Brief Fact Summary: This was a case under the Supreme Court of the United States that was between Leonel Torres Herrera who was the petitioner v. James A. Collins the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Herrera was convicted for a murder of two officers but later produced evidence that he was innocent. Facts: A law enforcer was found dead on the side of the road one evening in September 1981. At around the same time another officer observed a vehicle that was speeding on the same road and pursued it whereby it pulled over after a while and the officer was shot in the head.
David Elderidge should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Although the defendant claims that he is not guilty, they are wrong because Mr. Elderidge had the motive to kill Mr. Armes, the spatula that killed Mr. Armes had Mr. Elderidge’s fingerprints on it, and Mr. Elderidge was seen at the crime scene by William Warden shortly before Mr. Armes’s death. The first reason in the case was that Mr. Eldridge had a motive to kill Mr. Armes. Sandy Smith testified Mr. Eldridge was in desperate need of money because the bank would repossess his home.
People v. Porco 71 A.D.3d 791 (2010) People v. Porco is a murder case in which the defendant appealed the court erred in allowing the detective to testify about his mother. The defendant was convicted of second degree murder, and attempted murder of the second degree. The defendant attacked his parents with an axe while they were asleep in bed, killing his father, and attempting to kill his mother. The evidence used in trial was his mother’s affirmative nod to the detective to confirm that her son was the perpetrator while being treated by the paramedics. He also admitted at trial of other uncharged crimes that held similar means of execution and were disguised as break-ins.
The Case The case involved the shooting of five friends in a house during an armed robbery. One of the witnesses Larry Boatner stated that he was at a friend’s house shortly after Juan Smith and two other people entered the house. They demanded money and drugs which resulted in the shooting that left five of Larry’s friends dead. During the trial Boatner identified Smith as one of the gunmen who entered the house where the shooting took place.
After researching the Tulia case, I can conclude that the ruling was unfair due to a faulty justice system and targeted african american people. Out of 46 people that were arrested, 39 were african american. 38 out of the 46 were convicted on drug charges by Tom Coleman. An ex-agent, white male, who failed to submit any actual evidence that can convict them for the charges. 38 people were convicted solely by his word and falsified evidence.
As a result of this altercation, inmate Ruiz died and Plaintiff was subsequently charged and found guilty of battery and murder.
According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal” (Legislative Services Branch, 2017, para. 11). In the significant Canadian case R. v. Kokopenace, an Aboriginal man was tried by an unfair jury as the community where the trial took place was 25 percent First Nations, however, the jury only included 4 percent of First Nations people (Pinder, 2015). This report will summarize the major facts of the case, court’s decisions, and dissenting opinions of the judges. Clifford Kokopenace was an Aboriginal man who lived on the Grassy Narrows First Nations reserve
Johnson v. McIntosh was a title dispute over acres of land in present-day Illinois. The case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall in 1823, turned on the question of whether or not Native Americans had the right to transfer land title by sale to private citizens. Like many cases that determined the rights of Native Americans, the litigants were non-native whites. The inquiry “therefore, is in a great measure, confined to the power of Indians to give, and of private individuals to receive, a title which can be sustained in the Courts of this country” (pg. 13). In finding for the defendant McIntosh, the court ruled that the nature of Indian title is such that Indians can only transfer title to the federal government.
This would be a reason for being paid in restitution because it is illegal to discriminate against a person in court which means the state is breaking the law. Both defense and prosecution attorneys can defeat potential jurors who believe they have biases that impede fair judgment, but many significant biases go undetected or worse. This would affect Curtis because he is a man of color who had a jury of mostly white people. This led to Curtis being wrongfully convicted. Curtis has the right to sue the state because of the illegal status of racial discrimination during the case, with a crime that he did not commit because of the evidence of other
The State of California v. George Milton Dear ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to do one thing, imagine. Imagine you were in a foreign country with no money, friends, or possessions. Imagine you cannot speak the language and the culture is completely different than your natural environment.
The defendant had once challenged Sarah Koenig, the creator and narrator of the podcast “Serial” to test the timeline of our case claiming that timeline can’t possibly fit the events mentioned in the given time frame. So, Ms.Koenig along with the podcast producer Dana Chivvis test the idea by setting up a mock scenario as the state had claimed. After going through the test, the two had concluded that the time frame provided made it possible for Mr.Syed to kill Ms.Lee(Ep.5). This evidence is definitely reliable since the narrator and producer are creating the podcast, and have been investigating both sides of the murder. The scenario confirms that the defendant could have killed Ms.Lee in the amount of time our case claims.
The scenario consisted of a prosecution witness presenting microscopic hair comparison evidence and making it sound like it is very reliable without stating its limitations and subjectivity. There was also testimony from a defense expert and instructions from the judge stating the limitations of hair comparison evidence (Eastwood & Caldwell 2015). Some of the mock jurors received instructions from the judge on hair comparison limitations and some did not. The results showed that the mock jurors’ decisions were not affected much by judicial instructions, but they were affected by mock jurors who received instructions from an expert witness (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015). There were fewer guilty verdicts from the mock jurors who received instructions from an expert witness than those who did not receive instructions on limitations (Eastwood & Caldwell, 2015).
Race can be an important fact when selecting a jury. It’s important to have a jury of different racial, ethnic, gender or religious believes to helps limit racial discrimination. If at any time the prosecutor or the defended feel discriminated by the jury, their attorney can challenge the jury by using the peremptory challenges in Which he or she has The right to challenge a potential juror without disclosing the reason for the challenge.
In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee the term mockingbird symbolizes innocence in a person. In the novel it focuses on the fact that innocence, represented by the mockingbird, can be wrongfully harmed. There are two characters: Tom Robinson and Arthur “Boo” Radley that are supposed to represent the mockingbird. In the novel, Tom Robinson is the best example of a mockingbird because he is prosecuted for a crime he did not commit. Also, he was judged unfairly based on the color of his skin in his trial.
Visit the website for the Innocence Project. Identify two cases that are of interest to you and each the questions below for each case. Name of the person convicted: Alfred Swinton State convicted in: Connecticut Time served: 16 Years in Prison Describe the case:Swinton became a suspect in the 1991 murder of Carla Terry on January 13, 1991, because he had been in the same bar as the victim on the night she was murdered. Swinton was arrested for the murder after police conducted a search in the basement of of where he lived and recovered a bra in a box in a common area. In addition to the bra, which the state theorized belonged to the victim, the state presented bite mark analyst Dr. Lester Luntz at a probable cause hearing who claimed that