Defendants have the right to all exculpatory and mitigating evidence in the state's possession during the discovery process, which has been the procedure for the last half century. During the discovery phase of the Morton case, the only files that were turned over to Morton’s lawyers were crime scene photos and an autopsy report. Anderson kept everything else back, including the notes from the lead investigator Sergeant Don Wood, and Morton’s oral statements that were taken by Woods and Sheriff Boutwell. According to Morton’s lawyers (Texas Monthly, 2012), they had never encountered this kind of hardball. However, in the state of Texas statute requires law enforcement officers to turn over all their reports and notes once they took the stand, …show more content…
The adult video that he and his wife had viewed the night before was played to the court, used as a prop to emphasize his sexual deviance. The coroner who had changed initial finding of Christine’s time of death based his “findings” off his experiences and not scientific testing which he stated on the record. When Detective Boutwell is called to the stand, he produces six pages of notes, and the prosecution rested. Woods was never called to testify, which is highly unusual for the lead investigator in a criminal case. The defense suspected that the prosecution might be concealing potentially exculpatory evidence and raised this concern with the trial judge (Innocence Project, n.d.). On February 6, 1986, Judge William Lott orders Williamson County District Attorney Ken Anderson to provide all of Wood's investigative reports on the Morton murder to him to determine if any Brady violation had occurred, meaning that the prosecution withheld information that would provide optionally exonerating evidence in favor of Michael Morton. Lott determines there is nothing exculpatory in the file and orders the files sealed. Just six days from the beginning of the trial, on February 17, 1987, Michael Morton was convicted of the murder of his wife, Christine Morton, and sentenced to life in
He lied to Clarence’s defense attorney to get Clarence before the Grand Jury and then lied to the Grand Jury to get a murder indictment. He then lied to keep Clarence from getting bail. The last lie that the DA told was to prevent the defense from even getting access, as required by law, to any of the state’s evidence. The medical evidence that would have cleared Clarence was “lost." The original exhibits in Clarence’s two trials were "stolen." The medical examiner "forgot" the results of the dead girl 's autopsy, "mislaid" his notes and "threw out" the samples he had taken from her body (Gores, 1991). Texas Ranger John Styles terrorized witnesses whose testimony would have supported Clarence’s innocence, then coached the rest into telling outright lies. Styles also reversed the polygraph test supporting Clarence’s
In the weeks following the discovery of Christine's body, the police revealed several strong suspects but no direct evidence linking anybody. Shortly thereafter they began to focus on Morin, solely because of his "strange behaviour" (Chisholm, 1995). Police became even more suspicious when Morin failed to attend the funeral - he thought he had to be invited (Chisholm, 1995). This series of circumstantial evidence became further plagued with errors and tainted testimony as his trials wore on. Right from the start there exist a prejudice towards Morin. Police convinced the Jessop's to perjure themselves so that evidence would stick. When brought in for questioning, the interrogation was audio taped for corroboration. The tape ran out after forty-five minutes and Fitzpatrick and Shephard testified that in the remaining ninety minutes Morin confessed to the killing and repeatedly made guilty comments (King, 1998).
The detectives were able to track Richard. He refused to reason with them, but they found an opportunistic approach to search him. He was discovered with Dan Meredith’s wallet. They searched his apartment and found his apartment caked in blood. In 1979, they arrested him and tried him in court for six counts of murder. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in an attempt to avoid death sentence, but was overruled. He was sentenced
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
“I agree with Ms. Krejci that the entire file should have been disclosed with the publics record request, but that does not make it discoverable.” Feeney said. “I understand her frustration that she wasn 't given the same information that another defense attorney was. When I discovered what had happened, which was in august, I immediately requested the entire file from the Phoenix Police Department so that I could disclose it to the defense council. I didn’t do that because I believed that the information was discoverable or relevant. I did it as a professional courtesy. So that we were on the same field, and so that she felt that she had everything tha...
Evidence analysis and ranging is the most crucial stage of investigation. The success of the case exposure lies in the gradual evidence research and collecting prior to the laboratory analysis. The CSI systematically makes his way through the crime scene collects all potential evidence, tagging, logging and packaging so it remains intact on its way to the lab. Depending on the task breakdown of the CSI unit he may or may not analyze the evidence in the lab.
...hed the car in places where contraband would not normally be found, but it had no relation to the discovery of the cocaine. The weapons found at the ranch are admissible due to the fact the agents had a warrant to search the ranch for drugs and weapons. The Lamborghini is not admissible due to the fact it was not covered by the warrant and the VID# was not in plain sight of the Agent doing the search. The statement made about trying to find Snow White would not be admissible in court because Agent Smith arrested Doe and started asking him questions about Doe's crime before Doe was read his Miranda Rights. Lastly, the statement Doe made about his supplier would be admissible in court because Doe was read his Miranda Rights and acknowledged his understanding of the rights and made a voluntary confession afterwards with no coercion on the part of the Agents involved.
Because police investigators are usually under pressure to arrest criminals and safeguard the community, they often make mistakes. Sometimes, detectives become convinced of a suspect 's guilt because of their criminal history or weak speculations. Once they are convinced, they are less likely to consider alternative possibilities. They overlook some important exculpatory evidence, make weak speculations and look only for links that connect a suspect to a crime, especially if the suspect has a previous criminal record. Picking Cotton provides an understanding of some common errors of the police investigation process. During Ronald Cottons interrogation, the detectives did not bother to record the conversation “But I noticed he wasn 't recording the conversation, so I felt that he could be writing anything down”(79) unlike they did for Jennifer. They had already labelled Ronald Cotton as the perpetrator and they told him during the interrogation “Cotton, Jennifer Thompson already identified you. We know it was you”(82). Jenifer Thompson 's testimony along with Ronald Cotton 's past criminal records gave the detectives more reason to believe Ronald committed the crime. Ronald Cotton stated “ This cop Sully, though, he had already decided I was guilty.”(84). Many investigative process have shortcomings and are breached because the officials in charge make
The criminal justice system has changed a lot since the good old days of the Wild West when pretty much anything was legal. Criminals were dealt with in any fashion the law enforcement saw fit. The science of catching criminals has evolved since these days. We are better at catching criminals than ever and we owe this advancement to forensic science. The development of forensic science has given us the important techniques of fingerprinting and DNA analysis. We can use these techniques to catch criminals, prove people's innocence, and keep track of inmates after they have been paroled. There are many different ways of solving crimes using forensic evidence. One of these ways is using blood spatter analysis; this is where the distribution and pattern of bloodstains is studied to find the nature of the event that caused the blood spatter. Many things go into the determination of the cause including: the effects of various types of physical forces on blood, the interaction between blood and the surfaces on which it falls, the location of the person shedding the blood, the location and actions of the assailant, and the movement of them both during the incident. Another common type of forensic evidence is trace evidence. This is commonly recovered from any number of items at a crime scene. These items can include carpet fibers, clothing fibers, or hair found in or around the crime scene. Hairs recovered from crime scenes can be used as an important source of DNA. Examination of material recovered from a victim's or suspect's clothing can allow association to be made between the victim and other people, places, or things involved in the investigation. DNA analysis is the most important part of forensic science. DNA evidence can come in many forms at the crime scene. Some of these forms include hair; bodily fluids recovered at the crime scene or on the victim's body, skin under the victim's fingernails, blood, and many others. This DNA can be the basis of someone's guilt or innocence; it has decided many cases in the twentieth century. As the times continue to change and the criminals get smarter we will always need to find new ways to catch them. Forensic science is the most advanced method yet, but is only the beginning. As the field of science grows so will the abilities of the
In this court case I do believe that most of the evidence found in this case should be thrown out because it was found out illegally. The officers stop was over after he found out about the computer. Also the officer did not have the right to move around the things in his trunk to find out about the computer. Mr. Wilson also should not have been convicted since he was asking for an attorney and that told you have the access to in your Miranda Rights. In my opinion Mr. Wilson's 4th and 6th Amendments were violated in the search for the car and the confession.
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
Criminal Law declares what conduct is illegal and proscribes a penalty. Although, we rely on our court system to administer justice, sometimes the innocent are convicted (Risinger). Most people would not be able to imagine a person who is convicted of a crime as innocent, sometimes that is the case. Imagine what a variance that is: an innocent criminal. In an article by Radley Balko he asks the question, “How many more are innocent?” In his article, he questions America’s 250th DNA exoneration and states that it raises questions about how often we send the wrong person to prison. The other issue that follows is the means of appealing the court’s decision and who they can turn to for help.
“An arrest is using legal authority to deprive a person of his or her freedom of movement. An arrest is generally made with an arrest warrant. An arrest may be made without a warrant if probable cause and exigent circumstances are presented at the time of the arrest.” (Cornwell University) An arrest may be due to criminal or civil proceedings. In each case, the person is placed in custody or under restraint usually for the purpose of compelling obedience to the law. If the arrest is during the course of criminal procedure, the purpose is to hold the person for answer to a criminal charge or to prevent them from committing an offense. In civil proceedings, the purpose is to hold the person to a demand made against the individual. In both
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
...ditional visits to the crime scene could cause a compromise if entered into evidence at trial.