After all the evidence found against Steven Avery, his trial now comes to an end. Steven's lawyers affirm that if he was to win the case, he could not be able to get his reputation back, but could only hope for his liberty. In this final trial, Steven's lawyers close arguments, the prosecutor settles cases, and the juries have their last debate. As mentioned, Steven's lawyers put an end to disputes as they claim that there was evidence for Steven that was not even considered. No blood trails were seen in the examination done in Steven's home. There was no indication of Teresa's body being restrained. It was presumed that Teresa was not killed in Steven's trailer, but in his garage. His defendants wanted the presumption of officers planting evidence to be done. The lawyers did not think that the officers killed Teresa, but they did believe that someone skillfully had led the evidence to Steven. …show more content…
He brings up evidence of Teresa's presence in Steven's trailer the same day she was found dead. A bill of sale and an Auto Trader magazine that belonged to Teresa was found at his residence. He brings back awareness of the bullet that had been found in his garage. When the cartridge was tested, it had Teresa's DNA. Kratz did not want to make the presumption that his officers planted evidence because it would ruin their reputations. Because of this, Kratz was accused of speaking in an unprofessional manner. Furthermore, as the trial approached an end, the juries have their final debate. The board did not come up with an immediate decision, so the court had to wait until the next day to do so. When this court day arrived, one of the jurors had to leave for a family emergency. A substitute juror had to be placed. The trail began. On Count 1, Steven was found guilty. On Count 2, Steven was found not guilty. On Count 3, Steven was not guilty. Due to these results, Steven gets the life
Trayvon Martin was assaulted and shot by George Zimmerman. During the trial visual evidence was used against George Zimmerman. Visual evidence is becoming more and more relevant in these recent trials. The increases use of visual evidence is a definite positive thing, however those who use such evidence should do so wisely. Those who improperly use visual evidence may mislead the jury, and convict/ not convict the right person.
Bath, N.Y. (WENY) -- Another thorough day of testimony in Michael Beard's murder trial. Monday morning, Brian Lang the owner of ServPro, the company Thomas Clayton worked for, took the stand. He testified to his business relationship with Clayton and GPS tracking in the ServPro vehicles. He said he grew up with Clayton in Binghamton and hired him in January of 2015.
Brenden was put in jail for admitting he helped Steven with the murder of Tarrasa. When Brenden was arrested some of Stevens family turned on him. Brenden’s mom believed he was influenced by his 43-year-old uncle to do bad things. On March 31st Steven is interviewed by the associated press discussing his nephew. Steven tries to send a message to his nephew through the news.
The documentary, Making a Murderer brought national attention to an otherwise statewide murder case known mainly in the state of Wisconsin. The cases, which both involved the murder of Teresa Halbach, were The State of Wisconsin Vs. Steven Avery and The State of Wisconsin Vs. Brendan Dassey. The handling of the cases is up to debate, especially the verdicts themselves.
Steven Avery fights to prove his claimed innocence. Steven claims that "they set him up," when he was investigated and was told that he was not a suspect. The investigation of Teresa's death resulted in finding an essential in Steven's residence, EDTA test being done, and log documentation of officers. When searching Steven's home, a key that linked to Teresa's Rav 4 was found.
Not only did Raymond admit to killing her, he told the undercover his strategy which was to deny, deny, deny. The jury listened to these recordings and still decided Raymond was not guilty and failed to show empathy towards her death. Tina's body was found in a garbage bag in Red River, Winnipeg, Manitoba; unfortunately she was only 15. When it comes to the lack of forensic evidence, I think it's
The smell in the trunk of the car was tested and contained a large amount of chloroform and key compounds of human decomposition. Evidence is evidence but not all evidence is good, but the “smell of death” that was in the trunk could have been used as good evidence to the case. Why? Because they did not have any other good evidence to prove that she killed her daughter, but that one piece of evidence alone could have convicted her of murdering her daughter.
A savvy lawyer can prove a person who is guilty guiltless although there are pieces of evidence against them and the public disagrees with the verdict. This situation is replicated in the O.J. Simpson trial. O.J. Simpson was a former player for the National Football League and actor who was tried in criminal court for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. Since Simpson had enough money and popularity, he was able to hire a highly specialized team of lawyers including two attorneys who specialized in DNA. At the time, DNA was a new type of evidence.
Despite of overwhelming evidence the jury found them not guilty. The jury deliberated only for sixty-seven minutes until they decided there
Hunter Thigpen Ms. Gourd Pre-AP 10 ELA March 27,2018 It’s what's on the inside that counts Steve Harmon, an african american teenager, was an outcast. Along with the horrible burden of segregation, he had to learn how to grow up while dealing with the mistreatment. So Steve is wrongfully accused of a crime ,and he is black and during this time everyone is very racist.so he is gonna experience a very unfair trial.
At the beginning of the story, juror 7 brought up an idea to vote if the defendant is guilty, which gets the jurors nowhere. He says, "Let’s vote now." Soon after he wonders if they could “all go home" (page 13). Juror number 7 had no intention of testing witnesses because he was hastily trying to jump to the conclusion and ignorant of the other possibilities that could have arisen. Juror 7 also demanded that "this better be fast” because he’s “got tickets to an event."
Juror Nine votes not guilty because he admires Juror Eight for standing alone against the majority. Once the jurors start to discuss the case again Juror Seven questions who else would have the motive to kill this boy’s father. Juror Eight rebuts by saying, “As far as I know, we’re supposed to decide whether or not the boy on trial is guilty. We’re not concerned with anyone else’s motives here” (Rose 240).
The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
Juror 3 was intimidating the other jurors, trying to convince them to stick with the guilty verdict. Juror 2 was guilty of self-censorship agreeing with the rest of the group to influence his decisions. The whole group began with the illusion of unanimity. According to Janis illusion of unanimity is, “the majority view and judgments are assumed to be unanimous.” (Psysr.org,
The postponement of further proceedings in the trial gave the jury some time to decide whether the boy was going to be convicted of the murder or not. When the jurors gathered to make a decision only one of them voted “not guilty”, making this