On the night of January 13, 2013, Jeffrey Wright was killed after causing his wife, Susan Wright, years of distress and abuse. His body was disfigured after being stabbed approximately 193 times. The body lay on his former mattress which had become blood-soaked and cut up. Attached to his wrists are ties which had been used to anchor him to the bed, making him unable to escape. His last visual memory was the sight of his wife hovering over him with a knife, wondering how she had been able to do what she was about to do. How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes 4). This is written in a negative tone implying that a change needed to happen in order for them to be more successful; this change being an increase in visual evidence. Expressing a very similar opinion is Michael Diamant, a business attorney. He states the following, “What I’m trying to do with the jury is to focus the issue so they can understand [it] in a clear graphic way, and take away all the noise around it” (INSERT, 2012, para. 6). This will allow the jury to focus solely on what’s important, influencing their decision in the way that the lawyers want it to. Speaking on the contrary to his previous statement, Carney argues, “Lawyers can get overenthusiastic about creating visuals. They forget they have to be directly connected to the evidence.” He then explains that the jury will get tired of it. The jury wants to be engaged and informed. This requires a balance between visual evidence and non-visual evidence. To put the summary of this article into perspective, it’s easy to use an example: the murder case of Susan Wright. Visual evidence will surely help the jury understand the actions that took place on the night of the murder. But what’s important and what’s superfluous? Some important visual evidence for the jury to see For example, according to a CNN article entitled,” 'Blue-eyed butcher ' sentenced to 20 years,” “A medical examiner testified he was able to count 193 wounds on the body, with the actual number of stab wounds well in excess of that” (Jakobsson, 2010, para. 6). Pictures were also presented to the jury to show the disfigured body. Another piece of evidence leading to the conviction of Susan Wright was the autopsy done that showed drugs in Wright’s system. The author of CNN stated, “They also suggested she may have drugged him with gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, known as the "date-rape drug," low levels of which were found in Jeffrey Wright 's system” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 10). One last conclusive piece of visual evidence was the presence of two of Jeffrey’s ex-girlfriends. “Misty McMichael testified Wright beat her repeatedly during their two-year relationship and tried to control her every move” (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 13). McMichael also claimed that Wright had pushed her down the stairs 104 times and at one point even locked her in a room (Jakobsson, 2010, paragraph 14). This evidence was in favor of Susan Wright. The impact of this visual evidence was significant in many ways. Evidence is proof and proof cannot be made up, only misinterpreted. Therefore, the excessive amount of stab wounds found on Wright’s body along with the drugs found in his system was
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
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
The novel Theodore Boone: Kid Lawyer has a very in-depth conflict that is showcased all throughout the novel. In Theo's community, there is a high-profile murder trial about to begin. Mr. Pete Duffy, a wealthy business man, is accused of murdering his wife Myra Duffy. The prosecutors have the idea that Mr. Duffy did it for the one million dollar insurance policy he took out on his wife earlier, however they have no proof to support this accusation (Grisham 53). The defendants do however have the proof that no one saw the murder, for all everyone knew, Mr. Duffy was playing his daily round of golf at the golf course right by his house. As the trial moved on, the jury was starting to lean towards letting Mr. Duffy walk a free man. To this point, there has been no proof to support the prosecutors statements that Mr. Duffy killed h...
Court room television shows and video games shave led people to think that trials should be exciting and speedy. Lawyers are now hiring illustrators, visual artist and graphic designers to transform piles of documents into sound and images. Technology to do such tasks is now at a much lower cost, making it affordable for almost any size case. Brian Carney was a former prosecutor and he noticed that jurors did not understand the evidence
Works Cited Aggravated murder: death penalty sentencing phase deliberations state of Ohio v. Mark Ducic Bicks, M. (Director). a. The adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage of the adage In the jury room: The State of Ohio vs Mark Ducic: ABC News.
Since its debute, Kimberlianne Podlas discusses how “CSI has been attributed with causing a rash of unjustified acquittals, exerting on trials what is called the CSI Effect.” This refers to how CSI influences or impacts a jury’s interpretation of a case. She goes on to say that, “Even though forensic evidence is prevalent on CSI, it is a factor in only a small portion of real-life cases.” Additionally, “many of the techniques shown on CSI do not exist, and this has led “forensic scientists to complain of the near infallibility of forensic science after watching a few episodes of CSI.” The CSI Effect has caused these viewers of the program, who have gone onto become jurors, to expect the presentation of forensic evidence in order to prove their cases, and without it, they are unlikely to reach a guilty verdict. This has led prosecutors to expect the need to present forensic evidence as a prerequisite to conviction. Even with eyewitnesses and other findings to offset this lack of forensic evidence, many unjustified acquittals have resulted from this mindset as jurors do not believe a case can be proven beyond reasonable
Yet with the help of one aged yet wise and optimistic man he speaks his opinion, one that starts to not change however open the minds of the other eleven men on the jury. By doing this the man puts out a visual picture by verbally expressing the facts discussed during the trial, he uses props from the room and other items the he himself brought with him during the course of the trial. Once expressed the gentleman essentially demonstrate that perhaps this young man on trial May or may not be guilty. Which goes to show the lack of research, and misused information that was used in the benefit of the prosecution. For example when a certain factor was brought upon the trail; that being timing, whether or not it took the neighbor 15 seconds to run from his chair all the way to the door. By proving this right or wrong this man Juror #4 put on a demonstration, but first he made sure his notes were correct with the other 11 jurors. After it was
A whirlwind of controversy arose in November 2002, when Judge Ted Poe, ruled that PBS’s Frontline could film jury deliberations in the trial of Cedric Harrison, 17, who faces the death penalty for allegedly killing a man during a car-jacking. In validating his ruling, Poe held that “cameras in courts keep the system honest” and are an important tool for civic education.1 Poe approved Frontline’s proposal, in which an unobtrusive ceiling camera would be used and no full-time cameraman would be necessary. Frontline had planned to edit the deliberations and broadcast them approximately one year following the verdict as part of a two-to-three hour documentary that would spotlight Harris County, whose juries have sentenced more people to death than juries in any other county in the U.S.2
In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she was still alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude to the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness, was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence.
Jurors may spot a witness that is trying to fool them, and diligent cross-examination can be an especially effective tool for ferreting out lies. But, jurors will almost certainly not spot a witness who believes their statements are the truth, but has fooled themselves. When testimony is plausible, how can jurors tell whether it is true or false? Jurors should know the factors that impact eyewitness reliability so that they can make more informed decisions about the trustworthiness of such testimony. Moreover, jurors routinely attribute far greater weight to eyewitness testimony than is prudent, making expert testimony on the issue all the more critical. Louisiana is currently one of two states to apply a per se bar on admitting expert testimony to inform jurors of factors related to eyewitness reliability. This paper contends that expert testimony regarding eyewitness reliability (expert eyewitness testimony) is an effective way of improving jury determinations and should be admissible in Louisiana at the discretion of trial court judges for that
Researcher Richard A. Wise and his colleagues focused on finding out how prosecutors and defense attorneys felt and treated eyewitness testimonies. They found that defense attorneys are more likely to question an eyewitness’s credibility than prosecutors (Wise, et al. 1278). They also found that prosecutors knew less about eyewitness testimonies than defense attorneys (Wise, et al. 1277). This study suggests that attorneys should be informed about the risk of eyewitness testimonies being false or fallible (Wise, et al. 1280). In contrast to the study discussed before, a study conducted by researchers Tim Valentine and Katie Maras looked at the effects of cross examining evidence between eyewitnesses instead of focusing on prosecutors and defense attorneys. They conducted an experiment in which the participants had to watch an event and then talk about it with other people who saw the same event (Valentine and Maras 556). They found that the act cross examining what they all saw led to people coming up with false testimonies with many inaccuracies (Valentine and Maras 557). Both of these studies differ in that the first study focused on defense attorneys and prosecutors while the second study discussed on the eyewitnesses themselves. Even though they focused on analyzing two different demographics, they both
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.
For example, the old man that lived beneath the boy and his father testified that he heard a fight between the boy and the father and heard the boy yell, “I’m gonna kill you,” along with a body hitting the ground, and then claims that he saw the boy running down the stairs. With this information, along with other powerful eyewitness testimonies, all but one of the jury members believed this boy was guilty. The power of eyewitness testimony is also shown in Loftus’s (1974) study. In this study, Loftus (1974) found that those who claimed to “see” something were usually believed even when their testimony is pointless. She discovered in her study that only 18 percent of people convicted if there was no eyewitness testimony, 72 percent of people convicted when someone declared, “That’s the one!”, and even when the witness only had 20/400 vision and was not wearing glasses and claimed “That’s the one!”, 68 percent of people still convicted the person. This proves that in 12 Angry Men and Loftus (1974) study, eyewitness testimony is very powerful and influential in one’s decision to convict a
Eyewitness testimony is defined as, “an area of research that investigates the accuracy of memory following an accident, crime, or other significant event, and the types of errors that are commonly made in such situations.” Much emphasis is placed on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony as often-inaccurate eyewitness testimony can have serious consequences leading to wrong convictions. Eyewitness testimony is a powerful tool within any field, particularly that of justice, as it is a readily accepted form of evidence that allows for convictions. However, Tests conducted by Loftus have shown an enormous swing from a non-guilty verdict, to guilty within the same case, simply through the introduction of an eyewitness. This alone displays the importance of eyewitness testimony, and accentuates the theory that jurors tend to over believe, or at least rely heavily on such accounts.