George Stinney's Trial

Imagine spending a quarter of one’s life in prison for a crime one didn’t commit. This is what happened to Michael Morton back on February 17, 1987, when he was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of his wife even though there wasn’t real evidence linking him to the murder. There was no scientific evidence, no eyewitness, no murder weapon, or a believable motive. He was their only suspect, and the only thing they had on him that made him look guilty was the statement of the medical examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo who placed Christine Morton’s time of death at 1:15 AM that morning before Michael left for work. The medical testimony had convinced the jurors that the wife had died while Michael was still in the house. Christine died of eight

How would you feel if you were shamed over things you couldn’t control? Based on only prejudice and stereotypes, some people hate others. Internalized intolerance can exist in everyone, mentally and legally. Court cases and trials can distinctly show this. To Kill A Mockingbird focuses around an unfair trial of Tom Robinson, who was wrongfully arraigned for raping a white woman. Although clear evidence pointed to Tom being innocent, he was still found guilty. Trials from the 1930s to today can compare to this. Many trials compare to Tom Robinson’s case on accounts of false accusations, discrimination, and unfair verdicts.

“The only two people that know I am innocent, is myself and the killer.” Imagine being blamed for a crime you did not commit, and nobody would believe you no matter what you said. Steven Truscott had forty-two years of his life taken from him for being charged with a crime he did not commit. He was charged at only the age of fourteen for murdering and raping twelve year old Lynne Harper. He then became the youngest death-row inmate after one of the most famous trials in the history of Canada. Steven Truscott should never have been convicted for the murder and rape of Lynne Harper due to the fact the forensic evidence was questionable the

The facts were not at all clear to the Police Officers or the attorneys who will soon face this case. The players involved where many, but to name just a few: William M. Kunstler, a very popular and well-liked lawyer, he represented James Richardson. The Author of the book was the prosecutor in this case; he was young and unprepared to becoming an assistant district attorney for this case. But I do have to add that the work he did performed was excellent, but again William Kunstler he was a well-seasoned attorney.

At trial, the Clayton County district attorney gets around the lack of evidence by simply allowing the white victims to describe their brutal attack at the hands of a black male. The DA piles these emotional accounts on top of false records and contradictory identifications by the victims, and the judge and all white jury never give Johnson a chance for acquittal. I found myself throwing my hands in the air and screaming at the page as I witnessed an innocent man being buried under a blanket of discrimination and blind justice, condemning him to a life in prison.

During that time Johnson was the general secretary of the NAACP, and knew what impact the case would have on civil rights. Given this the NAACP aided those accused of the murder of Breiner, and a first-rate defense team was in the making. Assistant secretary Walter White was the main assistant of NAACP to find the best attorneys (who were not prejudiced, of course). He later meets Arthur Garfield Hays and Clarence Darrow and urges them to take the case. After agreeing they meet their clients about a month after the accident. Boyle shows how both James Weldon Johnson and Clarence Darrow had interior motives for defending the Sweets. Both men had a love for the spotlight, when speaking about Darrow, Boyle writes "in the glare of a high-profile case he found the perfect opportunity to attack the status quo and proclaim the modernist creed." The trial itself felt more of a civil rights case than a criminal case. The most impressive thing in regards to the actual trial was the performance done by Darrow. One could draw many similarities between him and To Kill A Mockingbird’s Atticus Finch. A common misconception of the courtroom is that the jury goes strictly off of evidence when deliberating. This book clears up that false belief with the attorneys playing off of emotion and targeting pathos. A strong argument presented by Darrow can be summarized by a few statements he made in that courtroom. “You are facing a problem of two races, a problem that will take centuries to solve. If I felt none of you were prejudiced, I'd have no fear. I want you to be as unprejudiced as you can be. Draw upon your imagination and think how you would feel if you fired at some black man in a black community, and then had to be tried by

Fritz Van Beelen was charged for the murder of a 15 year old girl, Deborah, on a beach in 1971. Fritz Van Beelen was prior convicted with two other offences of indecent exposure and the other for attempted rape before the death of Deborah. These convictions did not favour him in this new conviction and the Jury's decision, which was guilty. However, it wasn't just this. One year and nine months later, after Deborah's death, another trial took place with main evidence from Dr Colin Manock, all of which was very unreliable as well (Anon,

It is almost impossible for justice to be served when the trail was a mess. There was a 12 hour police interrogation of Jessie Misskelley. He is intellectually disabled, causing him to give a false confession. The police should have known the psychology of false confession and shouldn't have interrogated Mr. Misskelley for 12 hours. The sentences were based on hearsay testimony of witnesses who heard the boys talk about the murders: “...the defendant had been motivated as members of a satanic cult” (Robertson 4). Hearsay doesn't prove anything in the court of law. The jury is supposed to know nothing about the case; but of course one juror already had his mind set on his conviction. This juror

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.

Using the example of the case of Damon Thibodaux, he was taken for questioning after a girl who they were last seen with went missing. She was found strangled and naked (Leo, 2008). A homicide officer took over the case, and Thibodaux was interrogated for several hours. Although Thibodaux repeatedly said he knew nothing about the murder, the interrogation kept going, eventually the officer was able to record a statement from Thibodaux pleading guilty of consensual and non-consensual sex with the victim, beating, and assassinating her. Thibodaux was condemned to death, and was to spend fifteen years on death row and sixteen years in jail before DNA examination confirmed that he was not guilty (Kassin, 2013). Thibodauxs exoneration proceeding concluded that fatigue and exhaustion from the overnight search for the girl, the long interrogation, psychological vulnerability, and fear of the death penalty led to the false confession by Thibodaux (Leo, 2008). This case is a great example of

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

Miscarriages of justices occur due to many variables including faulty or wrong confessions, faulty identifications, wrongful DNA evidence, and the police’s overreach of power. On February 9, 1978, a student from the College of William and Mary, located in Williamsburg, Virginia was sexually assaulted at gunpoint. When the police arrived at the scene, she described her assailant as an African-American male about 5’6 in height and weighing around 145. Having gathered this information, the victim agreed to identify her assailant through photo arrays at the police station. Bennett Barbour was identified arrested and in the span of about two months was charged with rape on April 14, 1978. Despite having an alibi, not matching the victim’s description, and having brittle bone disease Barbour was declared guilty by a jury. Barbour’s case is representative of the many cases in which wrongful eyewitness testimony produces miscarriages of justice. Bennett Barbour served 5 years in prison and 29 years of parole until he was cleared of his charges due to DNA evidence when the Virginia Supreme Court cleared his charges.

In 1987 in Texas, a prosecutor was faced with this dilemma. Michael Morton was convicted of murdering his wife based on circumstantial evidence. Morton’s defense attorney was never told about, or given access to, the police report in which Morton’s three year old son had told police that his daddy had not killed his mommy. After serving 25 years for murdering his wife, Morton was exonerated after attorneys were finally given access to the police report and DNA testing of a bloody bandana found at the scene of the murder matched a man who was serving a sentence for the murder of another woman.

According to a 1987 study published in the Stanford Law Review, at least 23 non-culpable individuals have been executed from 1900 to 1987, which is more than one innocent execution every four years. These miscarriages of justice are often due to evidence that was not discovered or made available until after the execution. Although recent scientific improvements, such as forensic DNA evidence, have enabled investigators to more accurately pinpoint guilt in a suspect, no current amount of scientific or technological advancement can completely guarantee that errors will never be made. In an issue such as the death penalty, where the stakes are so high – human life – any margin of error, no matter how minuscule, is unacceptable.

During a trial, there are many rules, procedures, and codes of conduct that must be observed. These are in place to allow a trial to proceed more efficiently and fairly for both the defense and prosecution. According to one author, “Police, prosecutors, and criminal court Judges see too much crime, so they tend to see crime everywhere. We need rules to control their conduct, Judges to carefully apply those rules, and other Judges to review those decisions (law-article.net).” Courtroom procedures are important because, without them, defendants and prosecution alike could be treated unfairly. These procedures give a standard format for trials that must be followed to ensure that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their