In May of 2008 Robert McCoy was arrested for the murders of his estranged wife’s family including her son, mother and stepfather. He had originally been appointed a public defender but McCoy did not believe they were helping him prove his innocence. McCoy requested to represent himself until he could find new council. In March of 2010, McCoy’s family hired attorney, Larry English to represent him in court. When he advised McCoy to take a plea and refused, English explained that he intended to concede guilt. McCoy immediately asked the court to remove his council but the courts declined, saying it was untimely. In August of 2011, Larry English gave a statement at the trial stating that McCoy did in fact commit these crimes and that the defendant was suffering from emotional issues and was not capable of making rational decisions. Even though there was plenty of evidence for the jury to find McCoy guilty from videos, cell phones and witnesses, English thought he could keep his client from getting the death penalty. …show more content…
McCoy’s guilt even after McCoy objected. Mr. English’s plan did not work out as expected and Robert McCoy was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for the triple 2008 murders.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution states “all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defence.” In this case I believe McCoy was wrongly denied to have his council removed and represent himself as being untimely. McCoy had to rely on an unwanted council and strategy. The Supreme Court denied McCoys appeal stating that the choice of the council’s decision to concede guilt had nothing to with the defense attorney going against the defendants direction but that of the overwhelming evidence. Guilty or not unless Robert McCoy’s conviction is reversed he will face the death penalty because of his attorney’s choice to go against his
Arizona was not necessary to the decision. Justice Stevens both concurred and dissented in part of the judgments. Stevens claimed that recording the confession doesn’t mean it is involuntary or that it doesn’t follow the Due Process Clause. Stevens believed that Connelly’s incompetence to stand trial meant he could have been incompetent to waive his rights. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented and also believed that Connelly’s mental state was a reasonable factor in determining the validity of his waiving of rights. They thought that a confession given by a defendant who is mentally ill is one not given under a clear state of mind and is not voluntary. Without his confession, officers would have never obtained valid evidence to convict him of murder. Due process requires independent collection of evidence that would contribute to a conviction. Since there was no police misconduct, the evidence gathered had to be because of Connelly’s free, voluntary, confession but he was not able to make an intellectual decision at that
McCoy also remind the jurors that, in the eyes of many people, he could have been their next door neighbored or a kid from the neighborhood. But that night, the night that Mitch Regan killed Mr. Ngai, he is no longer an innocent kid but a cold-blooded murder, someone they should fear; someone that has beaten the life out of someone else.
In the United States of America, our justice system is here to serve and protect people of the world. Unfortunately, some are able get away with crimes and others are fairly judged. This often happens because their is nothing proving a clear path of innocence or guilt. In the book Monster and the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning, this can be demonstrated throughout. Based on the information given, the verdict of Steve Harmon seems to be incorrect while the verdict of Brenton Butler seems to be correct.
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
In this exercise the judge was morally wrong to oversee a case if they are or has been in a relationship with either side of the legal counsel as it creates a bias in his decisions however in the case in question all the evidence can be gone over by an outside party or transfer to another judge and counsel to see if the conviction was just
The crime he committed was terrible and obviously something that could only be done with someone who lacks any good intentions. His behavior during the his trial also showed the extent of his maliciousness. He half-heartedly attempted to defend himself by claiming the prosecutors were using false evidence and that, according the records of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, “Nobles concludes that he was denied the fundamentally fair and impartial trial guaranteed him by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment”. He put very little effort into defending himself during the trial and was quickly sentenced to death. In the early years of his time in prison he was far from the ideal prisoner. Earle presents how “He once broke away from guards while returning to his cell from the exercise yard and climbed the exposed pipes and bars in the cell block, kicking down television sets suspended outside on the bottom tier.” and on another occasion he cut himself just so he could hit an officer while they were attending to him before he passed out. This kind of behavior was completely eradicated long before he was executed, procuring him the respect of the prison
• Tony McCoy, defensive tackle at the University of Florida, was arrested and charged with sexual battery for holding a student at knife point.
I think his confession should have been used as evidence against him - at the time, the police probably assumed he was actively choosing to confess.
An Historical Argument for the Right to Counsel During Police Investigation. (1964). The Yale Law Journal, 1000-1057.
To show an unbiased and educated examination of the five cases involving questionable interrogations, I will give information on the crime that occurred, the problems with the interrogations and other evidence, who is at fault for problems within the case, how the defendant was cleared (if he was), and the compensation and future changes that were a direct response to these cases provided that they occurred or are in the process of occurring. The five cases that I will examine involve the accused: George Allen, Hunter Johnson, Peter Reilly, Michael Crowe, and Reggie Clemons. Each case is significantly different yet showcases many acts of injustice within the justice system.
...ing him, and the expectation was that there would be a well-publicized trial rather than a brief in which Ray admitted his guilt and was sentenced.” (Clark 240)
Rough draft segregation was a terribly unfair law that lasted about a hundred years in the United States. A group of high school students who struggled for better educational conditions were a big factor in ending segregation in the United States. Even though going on strike for better conditions may have negative impacts, African Americans were not treated equally in education because of segregation and the Jim Crow laws were so unfair and the black schools were in terrible condition compared to the whites’. In 1896 the Plessy v. Ferguson case made the segregation of blacks and whites legal; and the Supreme Court made the Jim Crow laws legal, saying that blacks are “separate but equal.” African Americans knew that was unfair and could especially see it in the schools.
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.
On April 5, 1999, 22 year old, Aaron McKinney was found guilty of felony murder, second-degree murder, kidnapping and robbery. 21 year old, Russell Henderson pled guilty to kidnapping and felony murder and was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Two women described as the suspects girlfriends, Chasity Vera Pasley (20) and Krista Lean Price (18) were charged as accessories after the fact of first-degree murder (The Data Lounge, Issues 2000, [on-line]).
A re-emphasis of the role Brooks played in this sordid affair may clarify to the Judges the guilt of Dudley and Stephens. Brooks was neither killed, nor did he take part in the killing. It is documented that he “dissented” from the murderous scheme three times before Dudley and Stephens committed the killing. Brooks is representative of a citizen of upstanding morals, a status which Dudley and Stephens in comparison fall well short of. Our opposition may argue of extenuating circumstances of delirium or crazed starvation which forced the hand of Dudley and Stephens in a situation where there wasn’t “any reasonable prospect of relief.” But Your Honors, we are fortunate enough to have testimony of a citizen, Brooks, who was in the exact same situation as Dudley and Stephens and was able to choose the moral and lawful