The Justice System is not always severed justify and righteous actions throughout history towards innocent individuate. Due to the fact, that the system can be very corrupted by forcing oneself to self-incriminate. However, that does not mean that the Justice System is not always corrupted and incorrect with their decisions on certain cases. Which can cause some dispute among the general eye of the public. For example, the Leo Frank case was one of "most notorious and highly publicized cases in the legal annals of Georgia" (Dinnerstein). Due to the fact, Leo Frank was put to death for a crime that he did not commit at the time.
Leo Frank was a Jewish man who lived in the Atlanta, Georgia. Leo was convicted for the murder and rape of a thirteen
…show more content…
Later that day, the police arrive at Frank’s house to show Frank the dead body of Mary Phagan. The police arrested Frank base on how Frank reacted to the deceased body. Frank reacted with unrest and nervous reaction through the body. Therefore, causing the police to make Frank the prime suspect through the crime. However, he was showed the body at the state as it was found at the murder (American Heritage). Based on the autopsy showed that girl had giant bruised to the eyes, cuts to the cheeks of her face, was choked to death with her own underwear and with her skull broken (American Heritage). Frank may have gone into a state of shocked due to Mary Phagan’s death, causing him to panic with any responses or answer he told at the …show more content…
Therefore, giving Frank an unbiased jury was very difficult to accomplish. When the jury selection was over, many people gathered around the court house shouting, “Hang the Jew” (American Heritage). The procstionor, Solicitor Dorsey, claim that Phagan’s happened across Frank’s office where he stated there are the hair and blood of Phagan. However biolist informed the prosecution that the hair was not Phagan’s and the blood stain were just paint spots. However the prosecution just ignored the facts that was given to him (American Heritage). Most of the trial was focused on Jim Conley’s story about Leo Frank. He stated that Frank told Jim that he wanted to be with the young girl no matter the amount of force that is needed. Conley also stated that Frank had tried to offer him money to dispose the body of Phagan (American Heritage). During the time the defended fail to defend Frank by not cross referencing Conley’s story with events that actley took place during the Conley’s story (American Heritage). When Frank try to appeal to the Supreme Court with their case because of the anti- Semitism had cause him to become absent from his own court hearing. However, it was quickly rejected with a vote seven to two. (American Heritage). Frank was found guiltily and was sentence to
They were dancing, and talking, and drinking. After the party, and a few too many drinks, he was driving his girlfriend, Meredith, home and crashed. Frank killed two people that night: Meredith and an old man crossing the street. Along with killing two people because of his poor decision that night, Frank was paralyzed from the neck down. Unable to move his arm, legs, and any lower extremities, he must rely on someone else to feed him, move him, and wash him....
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith
The Leopold and Loeb case quickly became one of the most well known case around the nations in the 1920’s and is still a well known case today. The Murder of a dead young wealthy boy by two young wealthy men. The Murder of little Robert Franks seemed completely random. Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb knew exactly what they were doing the day they planned their murder, they just didn't know who they were going to kill. Somebody they knew that would trust them and only if they had a perfect opportunity. When that opportunity arose it was Robert Franks a boy who knew the two men and even had been to the Loeb house to play tennis became the selected victim while walking home alone that day.This case from any other once the media found how wealthy the primary suspects were. These two young boys were caught and confessed within days. The real significance to the case was the plea.. Guilty. Not only did they admit the murder and plead guilty but they decided to go straight to the judge and have no jury. Through out the years Major court cases that involve the wealthy or famous normally are put to the top of the media’s priority. The media controls and attempts to persuade our view by showing the people what they want to. This affects our perspective of what crimes shown by the media, how the law is interpreted ,and also commercial culture in all that it is.
Now, it takes a lot of courage for an investigator to stand up and admit a wrongful conviction, especially in a case that he helped to convict. That brings me to think agree with the statement of Chief Justice William H. Rehmquist “the justice system has not yet learned to confront the fact that, even when there are no easily identifiable misstep, it can produce an unjust outcome.” (Clifford 4) It is because of this reason, that manyinnocent people end up in jail. Despite the efforts to get them out, many of them are denied. It took nine years for federal agents to even consider looking into the Edward Garry conviction case. In addition, it took another three years for Garry’s lawyer to get a post-conviction motion, which was denied by a Bronx judge, saying that the new evidence wasn’t credible. And still, Garry has yet to be absolved for this crime that he did not commit despite witnesses testifying on his behalf. This is a really depressing case because of the fact that Garry has become broken. “Garry gives the impression of a man who has been inside literally and figuratively for far too long.” Twenty one years of his innocent life that he may never get back. All because this justice system has failed him as a
The first vote ended with eleven men voting guilty and one man not guilty. We soon learn that several of the men voted guilty since the boy had a rough background not because of the facts they were presented with. Although numerous jurors did make racist or prejudice comments, juror ten and juror three seemed to be especially judgmental of certain types of people. Juror three happened to be intolerant of young men and stereotyped them due to an incident that happened to his son. In addition, the third juror began to become somewhat emotional talking about his son, showing his past experience may cloud his judgment. Juror ten who considered all people from the slums “those people” was clearly prejudiced against people from a different social background. Also, Juror ten stated in the beginning of the play “You 're not going to tell us that we 're supposed to believe that kid, knowing what he is. Listen, I 've lived among 'em all my life. You can 't believe a word they say. I mean, they 're born liars.” Juror ten did not respect people from the slums and believed them to all act the same. As a result, Juror ten believed that listening to the facts of the case were pointless. For this reason, the tenth juror already knew how “those people” acted and knew for sure the boy was not innocent. Even juror four mentioned just how the slums are a “breeding ground
Steve Bogira, a prizewinning writer, spent a year observing Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse. The author focuses on two main issues, the death penalty and innocent defendants who are getting convicted by the pressure of plea bargains, which will be the focus of this review. The book tells many different stories that are told by defendants, prosecutors, a judge, clerks, and jurors; all the people who are being affected and contributing to the miscarriage of justice in today’s courtrooms.
This case can be seen as a perfect example of the justice system failure due to several missteps that took place during the investigation as well as the trial and the biggest being that the overlooked Kimberly Shay Ruffner as a suspect. (Hanes, 2004).
There were three main issues behind the wrongful conviction of David Milgaard, each playing their own role in the ruling. Pre-existing views and perceptions of deviance placed Milgaard among the socially marginalized, making him an easy target for police and public allegations. The broadcast media had a huge impact on public awareness and police actions, presenting a problem with jury discrimination and witness testimony. Finally, and perhaps most inexcusably, misconduct on the part of the Canadian Criminal Justice System in both the investigation and prosecution of the case caused the trial to end in a guilty verdict. If any or all of these factors were more closely investigated or realized at the time, David Milgaard, may not have lost 23 years of his life and this senseless tragedy could have been prevented.
There are major problems with our criminal justice system. In the last one hundred years, there have been more than 75 documented cases of wrongful conviction of criminal homicide. According to a 1987 Stanford University survey, at least 23 Americans have been wrongly executed in the 20th century. For this very reason, the State of Illinois imposed a moratorium on the state?s death penalty in 2000 when it was discovered that 13 inmates on its Death Row were wrongly convicted. Anthony Porter, one of the 13, spent 15 years on Death Row and was within two days of being executed, before a group of Northwestern journalism students uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence.
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, the
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly commit such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
In closing, the criminal trial process has been able to reflect the morals and ethics of society to a great extent, despite the few limitations, which hinder its effectiveness. The moral and ethical standards have been effectively been reflected to a great extent in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury
Garrett, Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. 86. Print.
The worst thing in life is paying for another man's mistake. Sadly, this is something that occurs frequently. After watching a video about the wrongful conviction and the imprisonment of Ronald Cotton, I was baffled. I find it absurd that an innocent person can lose their freedom for a crime that they were not involved in. Ronald Cotton is not the only unfortunate individual who has endured wrongful imprisonment. Bennet Barbour, James Bain, and many others have been convicted of crimes that they did not commit due to faulty eyewitness testimonies.