Defendant V. Henderson: First Degree Murder Case

Vanessa Vermont, a gorgeous woman found dead in her own kitchen, laying on the floor with a fatal head wound on the back of her head. Just recently she bought a new broiler and need and outlet over her kitchen counter, something her husband could do. And it is right where she was murdered. There is also a woman’s briefcase on the floor near the kitchen. Which means Mrs. Vermont was leaving, which in turn could’ve enraged the husband.

In the State of Wisconsin with the trial of Jamie Covington we found him guilty of first degree murder. Jamie ment to shoot Dallas because dallas was always above him and better. Dallas forgot his keys one evening and he went through the window because he forgot his keys, he claims that he had gone through the window before and he didn't think anything would happen. This is why everyone is being questions to see if he was guilty or no, which he is guilty. During this case the lawyers questioned many people, but their stories weren't adding up. They talked to Ronnie Cecop, Casey Kramer, and Lane Smith they were on the defence side. Then Morgan Dexter, Blair Allen, and Jamie Covington where the prosecution. Most of the people on the prosecution side were very nervous, didn't know some answers, but on the other side the people on the defence side knew every question and didn't seem nervous. All of these people had their strengths and weaknesses.

Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does Search and Seizure relate to the B.I.G. case?

The court in rendering its decision stated that the evidence by the prosecution was not sufficient to sustain the charge of the first-degree murder. The judgment poked holes on the evidence produced by the prosecution and stating that the revolver was too large to be hidden in the pockets of the police officer and there is no way he could have planted at the scene of

Now comes the Defendant, Joseph Bettina, files this Motion For temporary Support and would shows:

Another thing that went wrong was the prosecutor’s witnesses began to sell their stories to the media, and book deals. When this happens lawyers call these “cash for trash”. Cash for trash is known witnesses who sell their testimony for money and is usually not credible anymore. With the case attracting so much media attention the witnesses in the eyes of the jury could say anything for money. That’s why the defense took shots at the witnesses by questioning their

At 1:30 in the morning on Saturday, Gabrion Walker, 17, died an hour after being shot. The suspect, Kaleb Oliver Greene, was recklessly playing with a gun on a road when it went off with no intention and killed his friend. With fear and astonishment, he fled the scene into the woods and was found several hours later by a police dog team. Witnesses said at the scene Kaleb was carelessly playing with the gun as if it was no big deal. Little did he know it would soon go off and kill one of his friends. Kaleb was arrested and charged with involuntary manslaughter, pointing a gun at another and reckless conduct. Due to the state law in Georgia, an involuntary manslaughter is a ten year sentence. I believe that since the suspect was recklessly playing with the gun and had no care in the world while playing with it, his sentence is reasonable. I wish I could say I understand his reason to run since he had no idea it would happen, but he should of stayed and took full responsibility due to his irresponsible actions at the age of eighteen. Kaleb is very lucky that he was not tried as an adult and sent to a federal

The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the emplacement of the mandatory death sentence. This declaration makes certain assumptions about crime and criminals. These assumptions include the notion that not all crimes are equal in severity. Severity of crimes differs from case to case. Manslaughter can range from a driver unintentionally killing a pedestrian to a disgruntled ex-employee shooting his ex-boss. One of these manslaughter cases proves intentional, while the other case proves accidental. Both cases fit the description of manslaughter, but both men are not necessarily menaces to society. The driver made a mistake, whereas the shooter did not. As evaluations of each case persist, the driver would likely receive a lesser sentence.

I brought up the question about the definition of self-defense because I started to believe that there was just not enough proof about the events that had accorded in the stabbing. I asked the group twice about their views of how they saw the events evolving throughout the “incident,” to be able to say firmly that the defendant was not simply in fear of his life, and that was the caused the stabbing. There were just too many a doubts, for me, of how the events could have spanned out. In the end we agreed that the crime was an act of self-defense and we were giving him the verdict of not guilty. I felt that my group decided upon a good method of coming to our decision. We worked together to read through the jury instructions and there were two people in my group who were far more knowledgeable and they helped us understand when we were confused. We basically broke down the instructions step by step and narrowed down our thought process to come to an agreed guilt and

Most of the jurors believed the old man testimony, but for me something wasn`t right, so expressed my thought with everyone in the room. I said, “I think this is what happened: the old man had heard the fight between the boy and his father a few hours earlier. Then, while lying in bed, he heard a body hit the floor in the boy's apartment, and he heard the woman scream from across the street. He got up, he tried to get to the door, heard someone racing down the stairs and *assumed* it was the boy.” Later we proved the old man was lying about seeing the boy running out the building, and we also proved the woman was lying about her seeing the boy kill his father while the train was going by. Most of us strongly believed they were proven wrong, but there was still some thoughts about

Since juror number 8 didn’t agree with the rest of the jurors, he had to support his claim with the evidence that was presented. He talked about the evidence that was collected from the crime. Some of the evidence is strong and makes sense. Juror number 8 made several good points and one of them was that it was not possible for the old man to have heard the yell. The juror claimed that the old man had poor hearing and there was a train that passed by the house around the same time the killing occurred. Therefore, how was it possible for the yell to have been heard? This evidence relates to the rest of the evidence collected. The old man was not a good witness to the case and so the juror had to continue to state the rest of the evidence in order to convince the other men that the boy was not guilty. Another strong point that the writer made in this film is the physical evidence that was used in the case. There was not much

Juror 4 is an educated and logical man because all of his arguments are based on the facts and evidence. He also notices some details that other jurors ignored at the beginning. He illustrates that the murder weapon, which is an unusual carved handle and blade knife is a strong evidence that proves the boy is the suspect because the knife is so unique and the shop owner also confirms that the knife the boy has is the only one in stock. And it is not possible that the knife just fell out from the boy’s pocket and someone picked it up and stabbing the victim or someone else use the exactly same knife to kill boy’s father because it is a not possible coincidence. Other jurors don’t accept an incredible coincidence like this as well. After listening to Juror 4’s argument, however, Davis presents his own argument, which is the coincidence is possible. But Juror 3 stands out and rejects Davis’s argument that he doesn’t think it is possible. At this point, Davis shows other jurors a very similar knife just like the boy’s. Davis points out his evidence to confirm his argument is correct, which is it is possible that someone stabbed a very similar knife and killed the father, because Davis bought this knife in a shop that is two blocks from the boy’s house. That shows if Davis does, anyone else could buy an exactly same knife. After Davis explains his argument, even though majority of the jurors still are not convinced by his argument, Juror 2 begins to question the murder weapon because he thinks this is an interesting point to consider about and Juror 11 says the knife was important to the district attorney, which shows that Davis’s argument attracted some

The film 12 Angry Men focuses on a jury’s speculations in a murder case. A jury of twelve men is sent to start speculating a first-degree murder trial of an eighteen year-old Latino accused in the stabbing his father to death. If the Latino is found guilty, that mean he faces the death sentence. The defendant of this case does not have a very convincing justification. The defendant says that the Latino had a knife that he claimed to have lost, and a few witnesses say that they heard someone screaming, some saw the actual murder happening, or some the boy running from the scene.

A part of me says in a first-degree murder case says the punishment should be just for the crime which in this case would be the death penalty. However the moral and ethical side of me says that death is the easy way out for the defendant. Unlike prison without possibility of parole makes the defendant suffer for life for the crime that they committed over their entire life. The bad part about this is in today’s time the prison system has softened and many people enjoy living there because they don’t have to worry about anything. So I feel like if I was on this trial I would encourage everyone to but their personal feeling in the matter aside lets review the evidence that has been presented against the defendant, and lets give them the most

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.