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. We were presented with many facts that all pointed to Mr. Washburn as the murder. In the house all of the entrances were thoroughly inspected by authorities, and they found no sign of ransacking. “[They] examined all the locking mechanisms, all the doors and windows. In [their] opinion there was no evidence of any forced entry” (P.81). When police looked for fingerprints, “They were all of the Washburn family and the maid” (P.81). There was no trace of an outside party; somebody usually in the Washburn house committed the murder. While in the living room, an officer found a drop of blood. The evidence technician was called the next night to run some tests. “He sprayed the living room carpet with luminol. It is a luminous spray, and when it comes in contact with blood it illuminates” (P.82). To both men’s surprise the whole living room was illuminating. After spraying further the men found a trail from the living room through the kitchen to the garage. In the closet the men found a wet mop, which was tested for blood and also came back positive. Somebody tried to clean his or her bloody mess, and try to save himself. The physical evidence proves the killer was somebody who was familiar to the Washburn household. The circumstantial evidence further proves only Tyrone Washburn could be Elena Washburn’s murderer. The morning of Elena’s death began just like every morning at the Washburn residence. “[Tyrone] and the children went out to his VW and got in the car . . . When he got in the car with the children he remembered a report he needed . . . So he went back to look for it while the children waited in the car” (P.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
The first piece of evidence that led to this theory was ice tray that was located at the crime scene. Due to the chromatography paper which was tested in Forensic Lab 7, it was revealed that the ice tray was poisoned by the one and only Beverly Hilis. In the Forensic Report it states, “The ph in the ice water was 9”(Forensic Report). This is significant, because this was the exact same ice tray Max used in his drink. The only person that was able to poison Max at the crime scene was Beverly. This is important, given the fact that the chromatography tests results showed that the ice tray was poisoned, Beverly could have made the poison because she is use to performing experimental things especially being a Chemist. Another piece of evidence that led to suspicion was Dez’s towel which was found at the crime scene. In the Preliminary Report it states,“ I took my dog down to the beach for a walk around noon”(Preliminary Report). If Dez was not near the beach house during the time of the murder then it raises the suspicion of why his towel was located at the crime scene. In addition to Dez’s towel being at the crime scene there was also the smell of cologne on the towel. In Forensic Lab 4, after testing out each of our suspects (Dez, Beverly, Chloe, and Ray) cologne we concluded that the cologne does match Dez. Due to the Forensic Report it stated, “The smell that
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
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.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
The ransom note was photographed in the wrong place, the police did not immediately search the house, and friends and family were allowed to enter the home. Due to the holidays, the coroner arrived more than six hours from when he was called. It was not until 1:20 p.m., a thorough search was proposed and ordered to do by John Ramsey (Ramsland). Since the police allowed family and friends to enter the Ramsey’s home, it enabled various people to touch vital evidence and compromise the crime scene. If the police would have properly secured the crime scene and took affirmative action sooner clear evidence could have been obtained, directing them to the killer. Jonbenet was found in her own home by her father after several hours of “searching” which immediately led people to become suspicious. Most compelling evidence suggests that JonBenet was murdered several hours before she was found. The time frame of death indicates that JonBenet was “abducted” right after her parents put her to bed. Evidence suggests no sign of forced entry, as well as a lack of footprints in the snow surrounding the house. Whoever committed this crime must have been familiar with the layout of the house since the body was hidden in the wine cellar in the basement (Bardsley and Bellamy). With this information, clearly someone inside the house was in some way involved in the murder of JonBenet. To be more specific, all signs point to John
Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, racism, which was hardly unfamiliar, became an even greater problem. The Japanese Government's attacks on Americans including; torturing, raping, and murdering was an excuse for Americans aversion towards the Japanese. Public officials began to lock up the Japanese people simply for their own good, for protection against the hate crimes.
The murder of JonBenet Ramsey has become one of the nation's notorious unsolved murder mysteries. A wide range of crime scene investigators and police officials have searched for clues for JonBenet's killer, but countless authorities have already considered this murder to be one of the most inexplicable cold-cases in America. As the world marks the twenty first year anniversary of the tragic event with still no standing suspects, an abundance of evidence proven through research points to one suspect in particular.
Furman v. Georgia was a landmark case in the annals of American Law because it was the first time the Supreme Court turned to the controversial question of capital punishment. Capital punishment has always been a hotly debated issue in the United States. When this issue is coupled with the issue of racial discrimination, the matter becomes hotter than ever. And this is precisely what Furman v. Georgia was all about: a black man convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
As the three witnesses claim what happened, it proves that all evidence points to James King who is guilty of Alguinaldo Nesbit’s murder. The testimony of Bobo Evans shows how James King was the one that pulled the gun from Mr.Nesbit’s hands and pulled the trigger. Lorelle Henry’s testify shows that she was a witness of James arguing with him at the counter before the gun was pulled out. The testimony of Osvaldo Cruz proves that James had one of the men planning the whole robbery from the starts and every one who was a part of it knew that he was going to be there in the store. Evidence shows that James King did not try to hide the trail of known fact of him being there at the robbery because of the number of people that had known that he
Louis, Kemper had confessed of killing her son and setting the house on fire after police officer had told her that she had failed the polygraph test. The judge in this case had let the information and the results of the polygraph come in to court as part of the evidence of the State. Later in the trial, the judge decided to call the case a mistrial as the jurors had heard and gathered too much information of the case that could sway their judgment. The case was also questioned in the matters of a suspect confessing to a crime after falsely having been accused of failing the polygraph test when in fact she had passed the polygraph. The defendant’s lawyer had stipulated to the Supreme Court that the confession had been corrupted by the detective involved in this case. Later on in 2006 the case had been blocked by the Supreme Court (Matthew, F.,