2. The admission of the testimony, in this case, is not harmful due to the strength of the state’s case and the existence of other evidence that would lead to the same conclusion without a reasonable doubt. A. Other evidence supported the conclusion that the injuries were caused by trauma and not an accident. A Confrontation Clause violation is a constitutional error that requires reversal unless we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless.” Lee, 418 S.W.3d at 899 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd). An error is harmless when the jury would have entered a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt without the objectionable evidence. Id. Even when disregarding Dyer’s stomach content testimony the State can still show that a jury would have entered a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt. In determining whether the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt a Court should consider among other factors, the overall strength of the prosecutor’s case and how important is the out of court statement to the State’s case. Langham, 305 S.W.3d at 582. The contention that the Defendant was a cause in fact of the victim’s death is supported by the rest of Dr. Dyer’s testimony and photographic evidence. 4 RR …show more content…
The error is harmless because Dyer’s testimony primarily relies on the photographs submitted into evidence and not the autopsy report that was not admitted into evidence. 4 RR 88. The testimony, which was included in the report is primarily the stomach contents, which were not relied heavily on the by the defense, as the focus of the testimony was on the injuries that were shown in the photos. 4 RR 84. It is true that the testimony of Dr. Dyer was important in establishing the cause of death. However, this conclusion was not dependent on the slides or the stomach contents. 4 RR
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.
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
``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.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
On December 15, 2005, Minnie Smith was found dead in the home she shared with her husband, Marvin Smith. Smith was charged with first-degree murder for the death of his wife. At the end of the trial, the prosecution asked for and received an aiding-and-abetting instruction, which would allow the jury to convict Smith even if they found that he had not delivered the fatal blow. The jury convicted Smith but did not specify which theory of guilt they adopted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction and rejected Smith’s argument that he had not been given adequate notice of the possibility of the aiding-and-abetting instruction. The California Supreme Court denied Smith’s petition for review.
3. A testimony by a morgue worker stated that there were signs of surgery done to his head prior to showing up.
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
Throughout the years, this clause has been very controversial. In the 2004 case, Crawford vs. Washington; Michael Crawford and his wife, Sylvia Crawford had approached a man by the name of Kenneth Lee. There had been alleged allegations that Lee had tried to rape Mrs. Crawford. In the midst of the confrontation, Michael Crawford stabbed Lee in his torso. Michael then claimed he only did it acting in self-defense because he thought Lee had just picked up a weapon and was going to attack him first. In the trial for this case, Mrs. Crawford declined to testify against her husband, and was not required to do so under spousal privilege. However, her testimonial statement was later used against her husband because the facts of her statement and the facts in his statements were a little different. Noticeably, whether Lee was armed and made an advance prior to his stabbing came into question. Mr. Crawford was charged with assault and attempted murder. He was found guilty. The court found Crawford guilty based on his wife’s recorded statements, describing the stabbing that took place that the prosecutors played in court. The statement contradicted Michael’s defense that he stabbed Lee in self-defense of his wife. After this incident, the Confrontation Clause was put into effect. It serves two purposes. First, it protects the defendant from statements made outside of a court being used against a person when they have no opportunity to test or challenge the alleged statement, and second the Confrontation Clause gives a defendant the oppor...
One day, I went to the superior court in Boston and to the District court. One of the cases that I observed at the Superior court was a case of assault and battery that happened at a train station on August 2014. an African American male who pushed a young male on a train track at South Station MBTA. During the court session, everyone gathered together to hear the assault and battery case that take place at the train station.
On Thanksgiving evening, November 27, 1992, Sergeant Kenneth Mathison and his wife Yvonne drive their 1988 tan Ford van along Route 131 in Hilo, Hawaii. The rain is pouring down and before he knows it, Kenneth Mathison is awaiting police assistance as he cradles his wife’s dead body in the back of their van. Mathison, a sergeant of 25 years with the Hilo Police Department was allegedly informing his wife, a maternity nursing professional at the Hilo Medical Center, that he was being investigated in his second paternity suit. According to Mathison, when Yvonne heard the news, she jumped from the passenger side of the van. While he was looking for her in the blinding rain, Mathison purportedly ran over his wife. He then carried the body into the van and secured it with yellow rope in the back before attempting to find help. Will the forensic evidence support Mathison’s account of that fateful evening?
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.,
When the first responder got to the scene he adimatately meet the 911 caller, who lead him to a car in an apartment parking lot. The car doors were closed and all of the windows were fogged. The police officer used his flashlight to see inside of the car before opening the door. He found a young African American woman who had been shot several times. The officers quickly called for backup, investigators and medical personnel. While awaiting for their arrival he secured the crime scene with caution tape, creating an initial perimeter setup as discussed in lecture two. Once everyone arrived he left it to them to search the car while he talked to the 911 caller, witnesses and others who had information on who had been present in the car. The investigators were able to collect physical evidence of bullets and cartage casings that were found outside the vehicle and inside the vehicle on the floorboard of the driver’s side. The team determined the bullets came from a 40 caliber. Other types of physical evidence that were found on the scene were the bloody clothing on the victim, the victim’s cell phone and fibers in the car from the driver’s side. personnel at the scene crime took several photographs, powered test for finger prints and did a blood spatter analysis. Stewart’s autopsy revealed that she had been shot at close range in the left hand once and in the
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
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.