Opening Argument:
Your honor, members of the jury, I am Nikki Anderson and I represent Perry Smith. To my right are my colleagues, Sarah Casey and Cheyanne Merritt. My client, Perry Smith, has been charged with first degree murder in the deaths of Herbert Clutter, Bonnie Clutter, Nancy Clutter, and Kenyon Clutter on the fifteenth of November, 1959. We will present evidence to you that Perry Smith should not be sentenced to death upon charge of this crime. We will show that the defendant is legally insane because he did not understand what he was doing at the time of the murder; our team will further prove that he acted on a psychologically uncontrollable impulse; and we will also show that the defendant did not understand the difference between right and wrong at the time of the murder. Mr. Smith did not fully understand what he was doing the night of the murder. His accomplice, Richard Hickock, had coerced my client into going through with an action that Smith really had no intention of doing. Being in an impressionable state as he is psychologically, Smith was believed that what he was being told to do was something he must follow. Being of this state, once being told to carry through with this, Smith was of an uncontrollable impulse to do so, of which he could
…show more content…
Psychological imbalances? I knew he cried a lot. Got awfully quiet and sensitive at times, other times he would rage and you wouldn’t want to be in his path. He was like a child. And unpredictable. If that’s what you’re talking about then sure, I was aware. And I learned a lot more about him the whole trip itself.
Did you think Perry would carry out the execution?
Yes, of course I did. He described a time he had killed a negro just because, and the manner in which he did it was just awe-inspiring. The way he made himself out to be left no doubt in my mind that he would take care of killing anyone who threatened to foil the plan.
Closing
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.
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
One of the most intense group task experiences in the United States is that of serving on the jury of a death penalty case. This forces a group of complete strangers to come together and determine the fate of another’s human beings life. The court case of the State of Ohio v Mark Ducic, was of no exception. Ducic a 47 year old drug addict white male, was accused of committing a double homicide. In accordance with Ohio state law, murdering more than one individual is considered a mass murder and therefore the accused is subject to the possibility of the death penalty. Ducic’s victims included Barbara Davis, his domestic partner and drug addict, as well as a drug user that Ducic was an acquaintance with. The death of Davis was at first believed to be due to an overdose, but police informants identified Ducic’s voice on a recording claiming that he killed her. The other victim, the drug addict, was thought to be eliminated by Ducic for fear that he would inform the police that he killed Davis. Investigators believed that Ducic gave both victims a deathly amount of drugs that would make it appear as though they both simply overdosed. Ducic was found guilty on both occasions, yet a second trial in regards to his sentencing had to occur and another hearing had to be conducted on whether or not to remove the death penalty.
... 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.
Kathleen Weiand shot and killed her husband Todd. At trial, Kathleen’s defense was BWS; because of Todd’s abuse, she had no choice but to kill him, fearing that if she did not, he would eventually kill her. Defense expert Dr. Len...
These two men, both coming from different backgrounds, joined together and carried out a terrible choice that rendered consequences far worse than they imagined. Living under abuse, Perry Smith never obtained the necessary integrity to be able to pause and consider how his actions might affect other people. He matured into a man who acts before he thinks, all due to the suffering he endured as a child. Exposed to a violent father who did not instill basic teachings of life, Smith knew nothing but anger and misconduct as a means of responding to the world. He knew no other life. Without exposure to proper behavior or responsible conduct, he turned into a monster capable of killing an entire family without a blink of remorse. In the heat of the moment, Perry Smith slaughtered the Clutter family and barely stopped to take a breath. What could drive a man to do this in such cold blood? The answer lies within his upbringing, and how his childhood experiences shaped him to become the murderer of a small family in Holcomb, Kansas. ¨The hypothesis of unconscious motivation explains why the murderers perceived innocuous and relatively unknown victims as provocative and thereby suitable targets for aggression.¨ (Capote 191). ¨But it is Dr. Statten´s contention that only the first murder matters psychologically, and that when
On the morning of July 4, 1954, Marilyn Sheppard was violently beaten in her home in Bay Village, Ohio, on the shore of Lake Erie. She was four months pregnant and had been felled by 35 vicious blows (Quade). Right away Sam Sheppard was accused of being the victim to do this. Sheppard had told investigators that he had been asleep downstairs and was awakened by his wife’s screams. Sheppard said when he went upstairs and entered the room he was knocked unconscious by the intruder. He denied any involvement and described his battle with the killer he described as “bushy-haired” (Linder). After a police investigation, Dr. Sam Sheppard was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. With the hectic media covering it, they were quick in decision that it was him that committed the murder. This was an unfair trial, ruined a man’s life, and gave him no time for a career.
As a child, a young John Smith witnesses the death of his parents at the hands of a crazed criminal, Rodney Alcala. Due to the insufficient evidence, Rodney Alcala, was released from custody. Rodney Alcala died from a heart attack two years later. Police found trophies at this home from over a dozen murders. It was determined that he was a serial killer known as Keychain Strangler.
First of all, I’d like to greatly thank the jury for coming and serving on this trial. Today, Mr. James King is being tried of the felony murder of Mr. Nesbitt. Mr. Nesbitt’s death is a sad truth to his family and his community. However, to place Mr. King as the murderer without solid evidence is preposterous. Remember, I’d like to remind the jury that if there is any reasonable doubt in the claim of Mr. King, you must vote not-guilty. I urge you to realise that by placing Mr. King in jail for 25 years to life, you will be compromising this young man’s entire future. I hope you make an informed decision to keep Mr. King out of jail.
torture of his aunt, his exposure to this man was limited due to the fact young children
The crowded courtroom was absolutely silent as the 12 all white and all men took their seats at the jury box. Chief Justice Albert Mason, one of the presiding judges in the murder case, asked Charles I. Richards, the foreman, to rise. Mr. Richards was asked to read the verdict. “Not guilty”, replied the foreman. Even though the circumstantial and physical evidence pointed to Lizzie Borden guilty of killing her step-mother and father, the all-male jury, men of some financial means, could not fathom that a woman who is well bred and a Sunday school teacher could possibly do such a heinous crime (Linder 7).
Is Steve Harmon innocent or guilty you decide. Steve Harmon is put on trial of the murder of Mr. Nesbitt and the robbery of his drug store. During the trail Steve Harmon is seen as guilty by the prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli. The witness Allen Forbes testimony proves that the gun used in the murder was registered under Mr. Nesbitt. This helps prove that the gun was used in the murder and the robbery and the gun was later found in the store. This witness helped me prove that Steve Harmon could have used the gun to kill Mr. Nesbitt or had taken part in the robbery at some point in the crime. “I went around behind the counter and I saw Mr. Nesbitt on the floor—there was blood everywhere and the cash register was open. A lot of cigarettes were
Your honor, we the jury are here today to give our decision on the punishment in the case before the court titled the state of Texas v. James Broadnax. Your honor, as you and everyone in the court room here today recalls, the defendant was charged of murdering two people in their mid-to-late twenties. For the record purposes sir, let the record show the two victims go by the names of Mr. Stephen Swan and Mr. Matthew Butler. Let the record also further indicate the defendant goes by the name of Mr. James Broadmax.
When viewed from a strictly medical, psychological aspect, Andrea Yates medical history indicates that after the birth of her first child, she began to suffer from various forms of depression and suicide attempts. If one only examines the paper trail and doesn’t think beyond what the medical history does or does not indicate, then perhaps, Andrea would be innocent by reason of mental insanity as the 2006 acquittal suggest. However, when viewed form a legal aspect there are several inconstancies that challenge if this former nurse was insane or if she in fact premeditated the murder of her children as well as her acquittal.
It was midnight when it all happened. Tom Peterson was sleeping in bed next to his wife after a tiring day at work, while his two little daughters slept in the next room. Suddenly he was violently awakened by the terrified screams of his wife only to get a glance of a huge man standing over him with a butcher's knife. Tom was stabbed thirteen times, one of his daughters was killed and his wife was severely injured. Now, the Peterson family has just exited the supreme court of justice in which the judge has condemned the murderer of their little girl to the death penalty, for as it turns out the Peterson family had not been the first victim of this murderer.