In this case, Dwayne Giles was tried in state court for the murder of his ex-girlfriend. Dwayne Giles shot his ex-girlfriend, Brenda Avie, outside the garage of his grandmother’s house. There were not witnesses, but Giles’ niece heard what had occurred from inside the house. She heard Giles and Avie arguing. Avie then yelled “Granny” several times and a series of gunshots sounded. Giles’ niece and grandmother ran outside and saw Giles standing near Avie with a gun in his hand. Avie, who had not been carrying a weapon, had been shot six times. Giles fled the scene after the shooting. Police arrested him about two weeks later. The court allowed prosecutors to introduce statements that the murder victim had made to a police officer responding
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Murder Could you believe or even imagine a charming, handsome and popular high school boy killing his ex-girl-friend? This is the case involving Adnan Syed in the murder of Hae Min Lee in 1999. "On January 13, 1999, a girl named Hae Min Lee, a senior at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County, Maryland, disappeared. A month later, her body turned up in a city park.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
(Soundbite): “It shows we proved our case. This was a savage attack and everyone in the courtroom knew it. I’m grateful the jury gave Teressa’s family justice.”
During Adrian Thomas’ trial, the prosecutors made their case around Thomas’ videotaped confession. The prosecution showed the jury segments of the videotaped confession. Thomas’ testified to the jury that all of his admissions of
“The Strange Case of Silas Deane” creates a new perspective on what people see as history. Although many people would define history as something that occurred in the past, through “The Strange Death of Silas Deane”, the writers make evident that this average view on history can be intensely deceptive. History involves examining evidence and drawing connections. There are opposing opinions to what the truth really is, but given the evidence the case cannot be concretely proven.
Convicted for the murders of his wife and two kids, thirty-four years ago, Dr. MacDonald still endures the agony of being accused of killing his family. Even after twenty-four years of imprisonment and several unlawful court hearings, additional documentation continues to up hold Dr. MacDonald’s testimony.
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
First, the respondents wrote a whole array of different things to convey different emotions and feelings to the defendant. This includes: expressing of grief and anger towards the defendant, memorating the victim, defending the victim’s reputation, justifying the sentence, asking unanswered questions, etc. (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). In order to write these statements, the victims had to go through a tedious process. The victims had to get the statement approved by victim advocates or prosecutors (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). Mostly, the victim advocates or the prosecutors don’t guide the victim in wirting their statements, but they do want to steer them away from threats against the defendant, obscenely language, or negative views about the ruling or the court (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). They do monitor the victim statements and has to approve them before it can be said in court (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). The judge can stop a victim statement at his/ her own discretion (Englebrecht & Chavez 2014). This causes friction between the victims and the criminal justice system as the process is long and have some
Held: Evidence would have been admissible as part of the res gestae because not only was there a close association in place and time between the statement and the shooting, but also the way in which the statement came to be made, in a call for the police and the tone of voice used showed intrinsically that the statement was being forced from the wife by an overwhelming pressure of contemporary events. 9 Res Gestae, Topic 3, Law of Evidence. Prepared by Ikram Abdul Sattar, 10. R v. Andrews [1987] 1 All ER 513 where the appellant and another man knocked on the door of the victim’s flat and when the victim opened it, the appellant stabbed him in the chest and stomach with a knife and the two men then robbed the flat.
officers were acquitted by a jury in a verdict that shocked much of the country. The
There are many serial killers who are known for their heinous crimes and killings of their victims. Serial killers however vary from one another leaving it hard to cluster them all together besides the fact that they murder multiple victims. With that being said, there is one serial killer who sticks out as devious and whose crime may not be as “famous” as he wished. This serial killer is known as the Green River Killer.