The movie Fracture, starring Anthony Hopkins and Ryan Gosling, is about an engineer who shoots his wife for having an affair with a detective. Jennifer Crawford (Embeth Davidtz) and detective Rob Nunally (Billy Burke) are unknowingly caught by Jennifer’s husband, Theodore “Ted” Crawford, having an affair. Crawford goes to the hotel his wife and Nunally are at and switches his gun for the officer’s. When Jennifer comes home, Crawford shoots her in the face, injuring her severely but not quite killing her. When the police arrive, Crawford asks specifically for Nunally to be the one who comes in. Crawford confesses to shooting his wife.
The district attorney, Willy Beachum, goes to trial because he thinks this will be another easy win for him. Beachum is an excellent prosecutor with a 97% conviction rate. This is his last week before taking a new job with Wooton and Simms. He is more concerned with his new job as a corporate attorney and his new love interest, Nikki Gardner (Rosamund Pike), who also happens to be his new boss, to pay much attention to the details of Crawford’s case. So, inevitably, some things go unnoticed.
No one expects Crawford to even come close to winning because he confessed and is representing himself against a prosecutor who has a great track record. He surprises everyone at the trial by revealing that the arresting officer was having an affair with his wife and bullied him into confessing. After this new piece of information comes up, the confession is worthless. Beachum now has no evidence against Crawford since the gun at the scene was not the one used to shoot Jennifer.
Before the next hearing, Nunally tries to convince Beachum to let him hide another gun at Crawford’s house. Beachum rejects this o...
... middle of paper ...
... to be thrown out and is not able to be used as evidence against the suspect. Crawford also used this to his advantage and says that Nunally beat the confession out of him, this is extremely believable since Nunally went over the table after him in the courtroom after Crawford said he was screwing his wife. Since Nunally was with him at the time of both confessions, they were not able to use either one. Nunally’s presence made Crawford’s confession be obtained by using force, threats, or intimidation.
Works Cited
Cole, G. F., Smith, C. E., & DeJong, C. (1996). Criminal Justice in America (7 ed.). Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
Hoblit, G. (Director). (2007). Fracture [Motion picture]. USA: New Line Cinema.
Self-Representation. (n.d.). Justia Law. Retrieved March 30, 2014, from http://law.justia.com/ constitution/us/amendment-06/16-self-representation.html
...ing of key evidence he was not found guilty. This goes to prove that although in this case Morin was ultimately found not guilty, there are other cases where the person who is actually responsible for the crime has been released for the same reasons. In this case the actual person who murdered Christine has not been found, although had the police widened their suspect list they may have found the murderer.
They will try to create a narrative that Chris Archer intended to kill Milan Jackson in her task and that pushing her off of the ledge was the final straw. However, none of their witnesses were close enough to hear or see what was really going on. Archer states that they attempted to grab the shoulder of Milan to save her, while the prosecution's witnesses state that Milan was pushed from the shoulder. This part matches up and since they weren't close enough to know what was happening, they have no way of knowing what could have happened. Also, Pat lied in their statement by saying they recieved no money for the interviews with Dr. Mitchell. Tyler Johnson will actually help further the narrative of the kindness and goodheartnedness of Archer by discussing how they would have conversations for hours and be really open with each
It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act. In addition, the defendant’s erratic behavior that raised suspicion could also be used to prove the burden of proof. The fact that the defendant indicated that his wife was deceased, while she still was alive, can demonstrate that the murder was planned. Moreover, the defendant’s strategic travel to San Diego after Laci’s Peterson body and fetus were discovered and the change in the defendant’s physical appearance can be used to allude the proof of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt. Also, the items removed from the defendant’s car during the traffic stop, specifically the thousands of dollars in cash, can indicate that the defendant planned to flee the country at some point during his trip to San Diego. Lastly, the chain of events that took place during the period of the victim’s disappearance and the discovery of her body, and the defendant’s secret lover becoming a key witness was used to strengthen the circumstantial evidence. All in all, despite the lack of concrete evidence, the prosecution team was able to provide facts that illustrated a timeline of events that could fill in the gaps of the
...lice or lawyers used their integrity. The police skirted around the law and use evidence that the witnesses said was not correct. They had a description of the suspect that did not match Bloodsworth but, they went after him as well. They also used eyewitness testimony that could have been contaminated.
Seigal, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2012). Introduction to criminal justice (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Neubauer, D. W., & Fradella, H. F. (2011). America’s courts and the criminal justice system (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Jack McCoy also reminded the jurors that this hideous crime was plan, not just a reaction. The jurors must not only decide the fate of the defendant, but they need to also remember how Mr. Ngai live was taken away from him; it wasn’t just slipping away, it was beaten out of
Bender, L David, and Bruno Leone. Criminal Justice: opposing viewpoints. St. Paul, Minnesota: Greenhaven Press, 1981. Print.
Pollock, J. M. (2012). Crime and justice in America: An introduction to criminal justice (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Schmalleger, Frank, Criminal Justice A Brief Introduction, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson Education Inc. , 2010, Page 387
Because police investigators are usually under pressure to arrest criminals and safeguard the community, they often make mistakes. Sometimes, detectives become convinced of a suspect 's guilt because of their criminal history or weak speculations. Once they are convinced, they are less likely to consider alternative possibilities. They overlook some important exculpatory evidence, make weak speculations and look only for links that connect a suspect to a crime, especially if the suspect has a previous criminal record. Picking Cotton provides an understanding of some common errors of the police investigation process. During Ronald Cottons interrogation, the detectives did not bother to record the conversation “But I noticed he wasn 't recording the conversation, so I felt that he could be writing anything down”(79) unlike they did for Jennifer. They had already labelled Ronald Cotton as the perpetrator and they told him during the interrogation “Cotton, Jennifer Thompson already identified you. We know it was you”(82). Jenifer Thompson 's testimony along with Ronald Cotton 's past criminal records gave the detectives more reason to believe Ronald committed the crime. Ronald Cotton stated “ This cop Sully, though, he had already decided I was guilty.”(84). Many investigative process have shortcomings and are breached because the officials in charge make
... believed in the innocence of the young man and convinced the others to view the evidence and examine the true events that occurred. He struggled with the other jurors because he became the deviant one in the group, not willing to follow along with the rest. His reasoning and his need to examine things prevailed because one by one, the jurors started to see his perspective and they voted not guilty. Some jurors were not convinced, no matter how much evidence was there, especially Juror #3. His issues with his son affected his decision-making but in the end, he only examined the evidence and concluded that the young man was not guilty.
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.
Witness for the Prosecution has been a critically-acclaimed film ever since its release, and it could be argued much of its success comes from the stellar performance of Charles Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts, a lawyer with a high success rate and an even higher level of ego. Audience members laughed at his jokes, no matter how demeaning they might have been to their targets, and they also held their breath in anticipation for him to discover the truth about his client's case. The acting style of Charles Laughton and the development of the character himself added to the crowd's desire to see if the lawyer would uncover the right evidence to win his trial. Aristotle himself would have been invested in Sir Robarts' case and how he handles it
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