Wayne Williams Fiber Evidence Essay

The court could have taken into account that there was no physical evidence that linked him to the crime. There was also express evedence against other parties that where involved. CASE #2: Lavelle Burt, 1986 Briefly outline the case (paste the link to it here as well).

Yesterday, Sloan Jackson, age 18 was put on trial for stealing a shirt from Famous Fashions in Merchandise Mall. He supposedly ran out of the store with a lump (which was the same color as the stolen shirt) in his jacket to go to Record Mart because there was a big sale going on. He then was found sitting next to the yogurt stand and the shirt was found in a trash barrel near the yogurt stand. He then ran away from the security guard but he was in the end caught and brought back to the store to return the shirt. At the trial yesterday the jury came to a verdict of being guilty after talking in the jury room for about 10 minutes.

Because he had signed the confession there was little to know hope for his defense. Even though he had 4 alibi witnesses testify in court the confession he had signed was overwhelming evidence to convict him. However, he maintained his innocence throughout the trial and

This persuaded the audience to lean more toward him being guilty. Anyone who watched the documentary can easily tell that a lot of research went into this. There were lots of detail that the directors included that really made it difficult to decide whether he is

I think that emotion and false testimony was a big part of this guilty verdict. Having mostly white jurors did not help too. I think that the jury mostly looked at his background and what the prosecution was feeding to them and the emotional effect it had on the victim’s mother. A trial should not be consisting of having to hear that the mother wants justice and that she thinks it is really Darrell hunt to the fact that another black man said he saw Darryl Hunt committing the crime and then try to say that he did not know who Darryl Hunt was. It was shocking to hear that evidence was just someone saying I saw this person committing the crime instead of having actual proof and DNA to back all of that up.

Despite of overwhelming evidence the jury found them not guilty. The jury deliberated only for sixty-seven minutes until they decided there

The list of victims was only made up of the killings that were believed to be connected to the Atlanta Child Murders. Although, the police did not include some victims, who they believed at the time were not connected to the killings. As I said serial killers are organized with a specific pattern of killing.

The trial began in 2006, evidence upon evidence was brought in to support the 27 counts of murder. The defense brought into question the legitimacy of

The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.

Innocence is is a lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence refers to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime. Being convicted of a crime and found not guilty later on can frustrate the convict and the convict’s family as the time spent behind bars, is time they will never get back. James Richardson was convicted and charged for murder and rape in Cross Lanes, West Virginia on May 18, 1989. First, Richardson noticed the neighbor’s house burning.

However, the way the glass evidence at the crime scene was documented, collected, and preserved absolutely would have had an impact on the examination results at the lab. The glass evidence was mishandled as it was reportedly transferred from an envelope to a plastic bag during the investigation, which could have resulted in further loss or contamination of the evidence. Overall, the mishandling of significant evidence compromised the reliability and admissibility in court. Again, this example of mishandling of evidence posed as another contention point within the case and resulted in much

Some of the more

One of the prosecutors, Mike Nifong tampered the evidence because he was “in the midst of a difficult Democratic primary election campaign to keep his position as Durham County District Attorney… Nifong's prosecution of the Duke lacrosse players and his many statements to the media were driven by his political strategy to attract African-American voters” (Wikipedia Duke Lacrosse Case). As an African-American, the false victim was

This is an important element when deciding who the best and worst jurors were. There were no facts as to who was right or wrong because we didn’t see the crime in question. All