The crime drama, “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”, was produced in 2009 by Faisal Al-Saud, Mark Brooke, and Stephanie Caleb and directed by Peter Hyams. The two lead male actors were C.J. Nicholas as Jesse Metcalfe and Michael Douglas as District Attorney Mark Hunter. The lead female actor was Amber Tamblyn as Assistant District Attorney Ella Crystal. “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom. The plot of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” takes the viewer on a journey as Jesse Metcalfe, an “award-winning” reporter, is convinced that DA Mark Hunter is fabricating DNA evidence to win convictions. After watching DA Hunter in a murder trial, Metcalfe requests a videotape of the murderer’s interrogation and a date from ADA Crystal; reluctantly, she agrees to both. After reviewing the video, Metcalfe and his cameraman, Corey Finely, approach the news editor about conducting an investigative story on DA Hunter and the fabrication of DNA evidence; the editor declines the story, which causes Metcalfe and Finely to mastermind a plan to catch Hunter in the act. The plan was to use a current murder case and plant circumstantial evidence pointing to Metcalfe. After acquiring a copy of a police report for a prostitute’s murder, Metcalfe and Finely round up th... ... middle of paper ... ...ing: “may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one” (as cited in Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). Works Cited Al-Saud, F., Brooke, M., & Caleb, S. (Producers), & Hyams, P. (Director). (2009). “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” [Motion Picture]. USA: Foresight Unlimited, RO Pictures, & Signature Pictures. Neubauer, D. & Fradella, H. (2014). America’s Court and the Criminal Justice System (11th e.d.) Wadsworth: Belmont, CA. UsLegal.com. (2013). Prosecutorial Misconduct Law & Legal Definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-misconduct/
A case in which Officer Michael Slager fell victim to when the courts later changed their verdict after being presented with a video of what really happened. “. if not for bystander Feidin Santana’s video casting doubt on office Michael Slagers version of events, he may not have quickly been charged with murder.” Imagine if this man would have been set free only to think getting away with murder is easy. Seeming that a person is an employee of the law, jurors’ do not expect them to lie.
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
On December 18th 2015 Netflix aired with great popularity a 10 part documentary series called “making a Murderer” The documentary, written by Laura Ricciardi and Moira Demo, present the case of Steven Avery; a convicted murderer exonerated on DNA evidence after serving 18 years for the assault and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen. The writers present the series in a way that suggest that Avery was framed by the Manitowoc Country police department. and present that the police planted evidence to frame Steven Avery because he had been exonerated from the previous crime. The ethical problem with this as is presented by Kathryn Schulz in The New Yorker, is that the documentary argues their case so passionately that they leave out important
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
The show CSI first appeared in the early 2000s and gained major popularity. Over time the show increased the expectations of viewers. The biggest expectations were the abilities of the crime scene investigators to always provide proof of evidence, as well as their methods used in gaining results from that evidence. Legal specialists anticipated the effects the show would have on the views of the legal system and how it would affect the juror process. This development is now referred to as the “CSI Effect” (Shelton, 2007). This effect explains that jurors were making decisions based off of what they saw on TV. This paper will analyze a specific episode of the show CSI: Miami. To be analyzed are the realistic and non-realistic actions taken
The wrongful conviction of Tammy Marquardt was also aided by the misconduct of the parties involved. Goudge (2008) claimed that Smith, other medical experts and prosecutors operated with a “think dirty” mindset, which presumes guilt first, rather than the ‘innocent until proven guilty‘ doctrine highly valued in the justice system. “The Goudge Commission found the actual words ‘think dirty’ in instructions from Ontario’s chief coroners, pathologists and police chiefs in 1995” (Shapiro, 2011). In Ms. Marquardt’s case, there is no way to conceal the fact that the professionals of the adversarial system did not satisfactorily perform their roles. It has already been demonstrated that Dr. Charles Smith “saw his role as supporting the prosecution,
The most interesting aspect was the Chamberlin case and the reversal of the interpretation of evidence that resulted in the release of the Lindy Chamberlain (Houck & Siegel, 2010). It begs us to consider the power of evidence and the ability of law enforcement to misinterpret the results. Not only are innocent people convicted, most importantly guilty people can go free. Just think chocolate milk could render a false positive for chocolate milk. Perhaps now DNA could decipher the difference between cattle and human samples, it is the knowledge that evidence can be swayed by a person’s opinion without serving the truth. This story heightened the relevance of specimen collection, testing, and
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.
The inaccuracies with how crimes are investigated and solved on television can become problematic for many reasons. The jury can have misconceptions about what is and is not decent evidence. They could also hold investigators, and the entire legal team, to an unrealistic standard. Therefore, this could potentially lead to cases not receiving necessary guilty verdicts (Ramsland, 2009). In conclusion, while some experts argue that this phenomenon is not something to worry about when it comes to potential juror members, these types of shows will continue to be popular. Therefore, it is important to educate potential jurors about discrepancies within these shows so they can formulate a logical conclusion about the presented
Tyler, Tom R. “Viewing CSI and the Threshold of Guilt: Managing truth and Justice in Reality
Murphy, E. (2007). The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence. California Law Review, 2007, 95(72), 721-745
In another article “The Top Criminal Justice Misconceptions on Television,” time, personnel, fingerprints, caseloads, solved cases, DNA collecting, eyewitness testimony, and jurors are the main
Producers of true crime documentaries take advantage of this by presenting emotionally-charged testimonies, anecdotes, and pictures that tear at our heartstrings. It’s important to remember this documentary, like many others, was designed with the clear goal of freeing Steven Avery again. The viewer is presented with solid facts, which make Steven Avery look like the victim in most cases. His wrongdoings are minimized, while his grievances maximized. For instance, Steven’s defence team picked over his previous case, finding any discrepancies or violations imposed by the Wisconsin department of justice (DOJ). The investigators are presented as being incompetent and unjust. The list of misconduct evidence against the DOJ extends, making an objective view effortful. The DOJ is portrayed as the enemy, and when police brutality is on the rise this isn’t a difficult feat. Opinions are made and conclusions drawn.
There is an assumption that an interrogation and effectively a confession is over once a suspect states “I did it.” More signals pre-admission is over, but a simple “I did it” does not suffice for a conviction. Here lies where the presumption that one who admitted to the crime actually committed the crime. If a simple “I did it” is not sufficient, and they stated facts, specifically facts unknown to the general public, how else would they have come to know that information if not for committing the crime. Here lies the problem that must be resolved. Because although inquiries into voluntariness and coercion at trial provide a quality control over pre-admission conduct on the police, they do little to manage post-admission conduct. That is the construction of the
After visiting and examining the PBS Web site, I was able to conclude that it is an extremely successful entertainment and educational site. The Web site has won many substantial awards, including the prestigious "Webbie Award" in 1998 and 1999. According to a recent survey, fifty-six percent of users at the PBS Web site are male and sixty percent are between the ages of eighteen and forty-four. Forty-four percent of the Web site users have children and fifty-seven percent make online purchases. (Gallup/Plaw Release: Survey of 40,000 Internet Users. Fall 1998.)