In November 2004, Scott Peterson was found guilty and charged with two counts of murder for the death of his 8-month pregnant wife Laci Peterson, and prenatal son Conner Peterson. It was not until one month later, the jury had recommended Scott Peterson to be sentenced to death by lethal injection. Before his conviction, there was no substantial evidence submitted during the trial that linked Peterson directly to the death of his wife and their unborn child. In fact, the only physical evidence presented to the court was a single strand of Laci Peterson’s hair attached to a pair of Scott’s pliers. The evidence was deemed circumstantial on the basis that it did not deliberately constitute as the murder weapon. The pliers were not found alongside
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
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.
... other hand, exploring new areas to distribute Zebra, the company might potentially run into a situation described by Rob Daumeyer from Cincinnati Business Courier. According to the article, when Madcap introduced its three types of beer, they ."..were caught short when they discovered Heidelberg Distributing Co. ordered 6000 cases as an introduction." (Daumeyer 1) They did not expect such popularity and could not effectively handle it.
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.
In Tim Seibles' poem, The Case, he reviews the problematic situations of how white people are naturally born with an unfair privilege. Throughout the poem, he goes into detail about how colored people become uncomfortable when they realize that their skin color is different. Not only does it affect them in an everyday aspect, but also in emotional ways as well. He starts off with stating how white people are beautiful and continues on with how people enjoy their presence. Then he transitions into how people of color actually feel when they encounter a white person. After, he ends with the accusation of the white people in today's world that are still racist and hateful towards people of color.
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
The new evidence added to the case is footage from both a dash and body cam, showing the events leading to Keith’s death. The new video evidence will be detrimental in the Keith Scott case because it shows how police attempted to resolve the intense situation. Nick Valencia provides evidence showing that Keith was instructed to drop his weapon several times, Keith’s wife had misinformed police numerous times, and Keith was actively taking prescription medication (Nick Valencia, CNN News). The situation is very interesting because the Scott family is claiming that Keith never had a firearm on him while the police were at the scene. From the article attorney, Justin Bamberg states, “The videos don’t show anything that should of lead to
Two aggravating factors in the state of California that may have been met for the death penalty imposition in the Scott Peterson trial could be (1) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree, and/or (2) The defendant intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait. Mitigating factors that could be used to convince the jury to convict Scott Peterson of a lesser charge might be (1) the absence of prior felony convictions, (2) the absence of a history of violence by the
The double murder case of O.J. Simpson is one that will live on forever and one that will never be forgotten. On June 12, 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at Nicole’s home in Los Angeles. According to Doug Linder, it was “most likely a single male that came through the back entrance of Nicole Brown Simpson’s condominium” (Linder). Since they did not have any other suspects they went right to Orenthal James Simpson who was Nicole Simpson’s ex-husband. Law enforcement had seen him as suspicious and they had charged him with both of the murders. The case had gone to trial and it was the prosecutor’s job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson was guilty and that he had done the crime. Simpson had what was called
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?
All of these dealers claimed they were innocent, but one particular defense attorney, Cynthia Barbare, took her client, Jose Luis Vega, at his word. He claimed to be an honest auto mechanic and the dirt under his fingernails led her to believe him. Plus, she found it odd that a reportedly wealthy drug trafficker lived in such a meager home. Her first line of defense was simply requesting that the drug lab test the veracity of the drugs. None of the prior dealers from Alonso’s cases had done so because the Dallas county court system unofficially penalized anyone who requested verification from the drug lab with a much lengthier sentence. The courts had simply relied upon the officers’ field tests. Ultimately, Barbare’s gutsy choice paid off
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
Scott Peterson was an educated man from California Polytechnic State University where he graduated with a B.A. in Agricultural Business. He was married to his wife Laci Peterson who was also pregnant with their unborn son. In December of 2002 Laci Peterson went missing in the Modesto, California area where she shared a home with Scott. Once the investigation of Scott’s missing wife started authorities began to suspect Scott as a suspect in her disappearance. In April of 2003 a fetus and a female torso that was missing hands, feet, and a head were found on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay area was where Scott was boating the day of Laci’s disappearance. The body was later identified as Laci Peterson and the fetus as Laci and Scott’s unborn son. Scott was also arrested in the month of April shortly after the discovery of Laci and their son’s body and was later sentenced to the death penalty. Over the course of this paper I will cover the whole event of the disappearance of Laci Peterson, relating it to a sociological theory, the impact the event had on our society and how the media had influence over this national event.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
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.
The appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife by shooting her with a shotgun. His defence was that the gun had discharged accidentally while he was cleaning it. To rebut that defence, the prosecutor called for the evidence of a telephone operator, who stated that shortly before the time of the shooting, she had received a call from the address where the deceased lived with her husband. The witness said that the call was from a female, who in a sobbing voice and hysterical state said, “Get me the police, please!” and gave the address, but before she could make the connection to the police station, the caller hung up. 8 Res Gestae, Topic 3, law of evidence. Prepare by ikram Abdul