Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Case analysis: House v.Bell
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Case analysis: House v.Bell
The case, House v. Bell created quite the whirlwind in the criminal justice system for several reasons. This was not a typical case that would be heard in the Supreme Court. The case began with the disappearance of Carolyn Muncey on July 14, 1985. Her body was discovered the next day. The Union County medical examiner report stated that the “cause of death was from a severe blow to the left forehead, causing a hemorrhage to the right side of the brain”(Neubauer & Fradella, 2009, p. 4). Subsequently, a neighbor of Carolyn Muncey placed the alleged perpetrator, Paul House near the scene of when the crime took place. The Union County Sheriff’s Department placed Paul House under arrest for the murder of Carolyn Muncey. Law enforcement officials
The case began in the Union County Court where Paul House initially appeared to be arraigned on the charge of murder. Bail was not granted due to the severity of the charge. At the preliminary hearing in the Union County Court, it was established that there was enough probable cause to move forward in pursuing the charge of murder against Paul House. The information was presented by the prosecutor’s office to a grand jury which issues a true bill indictment against Paul House. The case was then transferred to the Union County Circuit
DNA evidence revealed that it was not Paul House’s semen found inside Carolyn Muncey, but that of her husband. Furthermore, in House v Bell (2005), there was concerning testimony that blood and semen found on Paul House’s jeans, actually came from a spill of blood while it was at the FBI lab. The defense alleged that the spill at the FBI lab, along with DNA evidence stating he was not Carolyn Muncey’s killer and eyewitness testimony, corobberated
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.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
found behind the guest house was proven by DNA testing to have O.J.'s blood and
Her body had been bathed and thoroughly washed before being placed, it was also completely drained of blood [2]. Two detectives were assigned to the case: Harry Hanson and Finis Brown. When they and the police arrived at the crime scene, it was already swarming with people, gawkers and reporters. The entire situation was out of hand and crowded, everyone trampling all over in hopes of good evidence. One thing they did report finding was a nearby cement block with watery blood on it, tire tracks and a heel print on the ground.
To support their conclusion the board tells the story of two men who were exonerated after spending thirty years in prison for a crime they did not commit. Days after the rape and murder of eleven year old Sabrina Buie, half-brothers Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown confessed to the crime. Not only were their confessions made under pressure without parents or an attorney present, but the prosecution failed to present multiple pieces of evidence to the defense lawyers, DNA evidence that proved McCollum and Brown were not responsible for the murder. In fact, the DNA belonged to a Roscoe Artis, who was a suspect all along and was convicted of a similar crime just weeks later.
The criminal justice system has been evolving since the first colonists came to America. At first, the colonists used a criminal justice system that mirrored those in England, France, and Holland. Slowly the French and Dutch influences faded away leaving what was considered the English common law system. The common law system was nothing more than a set of rules used to solve problems within the communities. This system was not based on laws or codes, but simply that of previous decisions handed down by judges. Although rudimentary, this common law system did make the distinction between misdemeanors and the more serious crimes known as felonies.
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
A crime being committed is the first event to initiate our criminal justice system. On June 12th 1994 a double murder was reported at the residence of Nicole Brown Simpson the ex-wife of the then beloved Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson. It was discovered that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman had been brutally murdered and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) began their investigation, this being the second step in our criminal justice system.
Following the arrest on January 8th of 1992 the trial began August 18, 1992. The state had two factors that played a part in trial. One being Johnny Everett Webb a fellow inmate, with Cameron Willingham in Navarro County Jail. The second major factor being testimonies from investigators Vasquez and Frogg on what they believed happened that night. The prosecutors believed that Cameron willingly tried to murder his children by setting his home on fire. Cameron Willingham never changed his story and always seemed to be innocent. Willingham was found guilty on the grounds of the testimony that the forensic experts gave at court because a former inm...
That night, many witnesses reported having seen a man changing the tire of his van and waving any possible help away angrily while others reported seeing a woman wandering around the side of the dangerous highway. More witnesses reported that Kenneth and his wife were having many violent disputes at their home that usually resulted in Kenneth pursuing an angry Yvonne around the block. The most compelling evidence against Mathison, however, is purely scientific. Detective Paul Ferreira first noticed that the extensive blood stains inside the Mathison van. After hearing Mathison’s original account, he summoned the assistance of famed forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee to analyze what he thought was inconsistent evidence. Blood stains on the paneling and the spare tire in the cargo area reveal low-velocity blood stains meaning that the blood probably dripped from Yvonne’s head onto the floor. The stains found on the roof and steering wheel were contact transfer patterns probably caused by Mathison’s bloody hands. Blood stains on the driver’s side of the van were contact-dripping patterns which indicate that Mathison touched the inside of the van multiple times before and after moving his wife’s body. The final groups of blood stains on the instrument panel of the van were medium-velocity stains which show investigators that Mathison probably struck his wife at least once in the front seat causing the blood to fly from her open head wound. The enormous amounts of blood inside the van lead prosecutor Kurt Spohn to investigate the Mathison case as a murder instead of a misdemeanor traffic violation.
Mr. Miller claimed that his wife, Mrs. Miller, had gotten drunk and fallen off the back porch of their house on March 31. He stated that Mrs. Miller had fallen at 5:35pm during the Ohio State vs Michigan basketball game, which he watched right after he had finished cutting and raking his grass. He knew his wife had fallen because he heard a scream and had looked down at his Rolex watch right away. Mr. Miller remembers seeing his wife in the grass face down, and he knew right away that she was dead. From there he did not call anyone right away, but at 6:10pm he called Officer Muldoon and claimed that his wife had just fallen a couple minutes prior to the call. After reading through Mr. Miller’s and Mrs. Cleaver’s, a neighbor, alibis and comparing them to the evidence from the crime scene, I believe Mr. Miller had killed his wife.
According to the Innocence Project (2006), “On September 17, 2001, Chad wrote the Innocence Project in New York, which, in 2003, enlisted pro bono counsel from Holland & Knight to file a motion for DNA testing on Tina’s fingernail scrapings.” The state had tested the DNA that was under Tina’s nail from the first case but at that time it was inadequate and could not be tested. It was not until now that we have the technology capable enough to test it. In June 2004, the test came back negative to matching both Jeremey and Chain Heins but did come from an unknown male. The state argued that it was not enough to overturn the conviction so Chad’s attorney asked the state to do some further testing and to compare the DNA from under the fingernails to the hairs that was found on Tina’s body. It was in 2005 that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement confirmed that there was a match between the DNA under Tina’s nail and the pubic hair. According to LaForgia (2006), “this particular type of DNA, the report stated, was found in only about 8 percent of Caucasian American men.” During this process there was a new piece of evidence that Chad’s attorney had learned about during the appeals process, a fingerprint. There were some accusations that the prosecutors never disclosed this information about this third fingerprint and if they did it was too late. The jurors did not even know about this fingerprint and if they did this could have changed the whole case. This fingerprint was found on several objects that included the smoke detector, a piece of glass, and the bathroom sink. It was soon discovered that this fingerprint matched with the DNA found on the bedsheets that Tina was on. This was finally enough evidence to help Chad Heins become exonerated in
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.
The United States criminal justice system is an ever-changing system that is based on the opinions and ideas of the public. Many of the policies today were established in direct response to polarizing events and generational shifts in ideology. In order to maintain public safety and punish those who break these laws, law enforcement officers arrest offenders and a judge or a group of the law offender’s peers judge their innocence. If found guilty, these individuals are sentenced for a predetermined amount of time in prison and are eventually, evaluated for early release through probation. While on probation, the individual is reintegrated into their community, with restrict limitations that are established for safety. In theory, this system