Background and Character of T.J. Avery Ladies and gentlemen of the court, I have been charged with investigating, and bringing to the attention of the court the entire background and character of T.J. Avery from an impartial point of view. These are my findings. T.J. Avery comes from a sharecropping family which live and work on Mr. Gangers land; they are poor and lack financial independence. T.J.'s father is a weak old man and in consequence lacks the physical strength to punish him, for anything he does wrong. T.J. has almost no principles, so he has no problem with getting others in trouble when he was the one who was the cause of it. One incident was when T.J. had gone up to the Wallace store, and his younger brother Claude had followed, when he was seen up there by Misses Logan she told his mother that he was there, but when T.J.'s mother questioned him about it she just said that he had gone up there to get Claude, who he said was sneaking up there to...
Pagan writes a captivating story mingled with the challenges of the Eastern Shore legal system. This book gives a complete explanation backed up by research and similar cases as evidence of the ever-changing legal system. It should be a required reading for a history or law student.
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.
Wright, J. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice. (p. 9.1). San Diego: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/books/AUCRJ201.12.1/sections/sec9.1
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
Whitley, Kyles was tried for murder, convicted and sentenced to death. However, upon review of his case, it was discovered that the prosecution had failed to give evidence about a witness, a man named “Beanie”, and several other pieces of material evidence. Since these were not given to the defense and the evidence was significant, he was given a new trial (United states v., 1976). What separates this case from the others is the fact that the evidence suppressed was witness testimony and the witness’ background and prior statements. The testimony of “Beanie” in this case was important, as it had “significant inconsistencies and affirmatively self-incriminating assertions (Kyles v. whitley, 1995)”. Because this information and prior testimony relevant to the case weren’t released, the conviction was overturned. This is relevant to the dilemma because one of the areas that had importance to the defense was that the witness wasn’t consistent in their testimony and that led to issues with their effectiveness as a witness. Referring back to the dilemma and the officer’s conduct, the officer wasn’t consistent in their testimony, namely that they denied wrongdoing and later confessed. This shows that the officer is an inconsistent witness and that if this is discovered, and the prosecution must disclose that information, he can be impeached as a witness. This will mean that he is not as effective in the criminal justice
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 did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
(B) "Texas v. Johnson Certiorari To The Court Of Criminal Appeals Of Texas." Blacula. (1989): 20pp. Online. Internet. 16 Nov. 1999.
was taken out of class after suspected of committing two break-in robberies. Investigator DiCostanzo did not read him the Miranda Warnings and did not call a legal guardian to be present during questioning. J.D.B instantly denied his involvement, but after DiCostanzo warned that he may face juvenile detention, he confessed. After the confession DiCostanzo told him he could refuse to answer any further questions and leave. “J.D.B nodded and provided further detail, including information about the location of the stolen items. Eventually J.D.B wrote a statement, at DiCostanzo’s request” (J.D.B. v. North Carolina) it was after the confession that DiCostanzo told J.D.B that he could refuse any further questions, but he hadn’t told him this previously. Following the questioning J.D.B. was charged for breaking and entering, and
With the help from F. Lee Bailey, who spent five years appealing the verdict; all the way to the Supreme Court, released Sheppard from prison granting retrial for inherently prejudicial publicity (Rompalske 20). Although Sheppard was found not guilty in 1966, his life had been des...
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.
bad decisions. In trying to please everyone, he pleased no one. “They stumble who run
Garrett, Brandon. Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2011. 86. Print.
Berns, Walter. "Getting Away With Murder." Commentary 97.4 (1994): 25. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 14
Linder, D.O. (n.d). The Trials of the Scottsboro Boys. Retrieved March 14, 2005, from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/SB_acct.html
Legal Information Institute. (2010, August 9). Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_law