The 1995 trial of OJ Simpson, a famous football player, created a “media circus” which enraptured the United States and the world. In this trial, Simpson was accused of the murder of his wife and Ronald Goldman. His trial came into the limelight during the car chase leading to his arrest; an estimated 95 million people watched on television. Yet, the car chase was not the only reason for the case’s popularity. Simpson, his lead attorney Jonnie Cochran, and many jury members were African Americans. This led to the division of those involved, the nation and any other people watching the trial, on racial lines. Defense Attorney Jonnie Cochran appeals to the African American side as he lays out all the vital facts in this argument. Cochran uses a combination of all three appeals, although he relies heavily on the logical and emotional, to persuade the jury of the prosecution’s impractical defense and of OJ Simpson’s innocence.
Whether one particular person happens to be a defendant, a witness, a friend, or even just an acquaintance, murder cases weigh heavily on everyone involved. Huge amounts of evidence must be analyzed, people must be interviewed, research must be done, and a case must be made. Ultimately, all this work comes down to one decision: convict or acquit. The case of Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland is no exception. Syed, at the age of nineteen, was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. He was sentenced to life in prison, plus thirty years. However, from the day the case ended, people have had doubts about the verdict. Holes in the state’s argument slowly became more apparent. For example, the state placed a massive amount of trust
During Mr. Coker’s trial on his new charges, his defense argued that their client was temporarily insane at the time the crimes were committed. However, the jury rejected this defense and found Mr. Coker guilty on all charges. At the sentencing hearing, the Judge instructed the jury that
The case Anthony Ray Hinton which reached is prolonged conclusion in 2015 demonstrates what harm can be caused by the inadequate performance of an attorney. Hinton was convicted for a two murders during armed robberies. The only evidence provided by the prosecution during his trial was a ballistic expertise which matched the bullets found at the scene of the crime and the gun of the defendant’s mother. Hinton’s defense attorney failed to provide the funding that was needed for expert witnesses which would have been able to rebut the prosecutions expertise. Anthony Ray Hinton was declared guilty and sentenced to
The fire spread from the O’Learys’ barn to the yards nearby. Soon it was spreading throughout the neighborhood. William Lee, a neighbor a block away, saw the fire and ran to Bruno Goll’s drugstore to turn in the fire alarm. Bruno Goll refused to turn in the alarm because he said the fire truck had already gone past. So instead of arguing, Lee went home to his family. At the courthouse the lookout on duty saw smoke, but thought nothing of it, thinking it was just Saturday's fire and there was no reason to be alarmed. Then he looked up and noticed it was a different fire and had his assistant strike the Box 342 for the fire department. Soon fire trucks were at the scene and attempted to put out the fire. The fire department’s Chief Marshal, Robert A. Williams got the engines to circle the fire to contain it. They got as close to the fire as they could until their arm hair was being burned and their
Forcelli explains his displeasure of our broken criminal justice system when he states, “The sad part is that getting an innocent man out of jail is way, way, way harder than putting a guilty man in jail.” When detectives are constantly pressured to close cases and produce high conviction rates it can cause in accuracies in convictions. Garry’s case is a perfect example of how a case with minimal evidence can result in an innocent getting placed in prison. Garry has sat in prison for over 20 years waiting to appeal his case and plead his innocence. The ease of convicting an innocent man should be consistent with difficulty of exonerating an innocent man. In Garry’s case he awaits a decision from a judge where the judge has three options, to exonerate him, grant a retrial, or
As I, Klaudia Hoxha (forensic technician), approached the crime scene at 4 o'clock pm at the residence of Josh Powell. As i approached the scene i noticed 4 reporting officers, and the fire fighters who put the fire out, were present at this two story single family dwelling. I approached the reporting officers and fire fighters and took copies of there reports. I then immendently, sent in my team to take pictures and any kind of evidence they can find. From the looks this residential seemed occupied. A fire expands horizontally and vertically from it's point of origin, which in this case is the center of the house. According to a report, i noticed a witness who was a member/ social worker from Powell's meeting groups ,gave a statement that
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
Through my research on this critical thinking paper I have learned that the quality of the defendant’s defense lawyer is perhaps the single
Merits: The respondent, Daniel Murphy, was convicted by a jury in an Oregon court of the second-degree murder of his wife. The victim died by strangulation in her home in the city of Portland, and abrasions and lacerations were found on her throat. There was no sign of a break-in or robbery. Word of the murder was sent to the estranged husband, Daniel Murphy. Upon receiving the message, Murphy promptly telephoned the Portland police and voluntarily came into Portland for questioning. Shortly after the respondent’s arrival at the station house, where he was met by retained counsel, the
By the time John Orr was convicted of four counts of murder for the South Pasadena hardware store fire, he had already served six years in prison. Orr was convicted of three counts of arson. At the end, Orr was convicted using his very own signature homemade incendiary device. Fellow firefighters began suspecting that the arsonist was one of their own after conference of arson investigators. During the conference period, an oddly large amount of fire broke out. During that time fires broke out in fabric shops, drugstores, and craft shops. At a craft shop in Bakersfield, California a fire broke out in a display of dried flowers. At the scene, investigators found charred remnants of what appeared a simple incendiary device — a filter-tipped cigarette and matches, held together with a rubber band. One of the devices was partially wrapped in yellow paper (Bovsun, 2014). Though many of the investigator believe this was the work of an expert attending the arson conference, it could not be proven.
One year previous to Caminata’s exoneration, Dave Moran (Director of the Michigan Innocence Clinic) decided to represent Victor and he filed a motion for relief. Moran filed this motion because he believed
Richard Willing allows one to connect precisely with how Doctor Mudd would have felt about his conviction after reviewing the courts papers involving the case (04a). Willing states that Philip
Thousands of fires occur on a yearly basis throughout the United States. Whether it is forest fires, house fires, or any other event that involves uncontrollable flames, the outcome will always be the same; high amounts of destruction and physical damage. When fire emergencies occur, responding to the incident may not be much of a complication as apposed to determining the source from where the fire started or what triggered its behavior, which is truly the challenge. In order to do so, a fire investigator has to be present at the scene of the fire after it has been eliminated. The investigator, after reviewing any possible marks or behavior trails, will conclude if the incident was indeed an accident or intentional, thus making it an act
My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault