Summary: Frontline PBS Documentary on the real CSI In this video Correspondent LOWELL BERGMAN questions the scientific validity of forensic science. He also expresses that it is not as simple as it appears on television shows. Detective. Joanna Grivetti who is a crime scene investigator in Richmond, California explains that the
Twenty years later information surfaced that suggested that the evidence in the two previous trials had been tampered with. The Assistant District Attorney, with the help of Evers's widow, began compiling a new case. (Elliot Jr., pg.1)
Title Page Title: The Innocence Project Author: Naomi Douglas Date: 9th March 2012 Contents * The Innocence Project Organisation * Death Row * Two Cases * Niamh Gunn
State v. Etzweiler (New Hampshire 1984) Parties: Petitioner = State of New Hampshire Respondent = Mark Etzweiler, Ralph Bailey Legal Claim: State of New Hampshire (Superior court) questioned whether certain laws applied to the specific facts of Etzweiler’s case. Ralph Bailey was indicted for manslaughter and Mark Etzweiler was indicted for negligent
Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.
Miller v. Alabama CJA/354 Miller v. Alabama The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were
Clarence Harrison and David Ranta cases are similar due to the fact that it shows the main goal for our criminal justice system is to seek justice. Harrison was wrongly convicted of a crime due to a flawed eyewitness testimony and DNA blood test. His armed robbery conviction at the age of nineteen also played a major part in his case, because it allowed his face to be put into a lineup of suspects. The victim who was sexually assaulted picked out Harrison as the man who attacked and raped her at the Marta Bus station. Sophisticated DNA blood testing was not even available during the time of Harrison’s conviction. The blood test administrated could only rule that Clarence was one of the eighty-eight percent of the population who could have committed the sexual assault. Unfortunately, Harrison had no clear alibi, and eyewitness testimony the jurors found him guilty of rape where he served seventeen years before he was later exonerated.
Facts: Mickens (respondent) was indicted the planned homicide of Lobby, and he was sentenced to death. After five years he recorded a request for a writ of habeas corpus. In the writ he asserted that he had been denied of successful help of insight since one of his court-selected lawyers had an irreconcilable circumstance, to be specific, his lead trial lawyer Saunders had spoken to Lobby at the season of the homicide. Three weeks after Saunders had met with Corridor, who was then killed, Saunders was selected as advice for Mickens. Saunders did not tell Mickens that he had spoken to Lobby, but rather Mickens found out about the past representation when an assistant
The Criminal Justice system of Texas, while functional and stable, has had flaws that have cost some individuals years of their lives by serving a sentence in jail or being charged with the death penalty. Errors in the justice system are to be expected as the legal system is not
Justice Scalia: Hernandez v. Mesa Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Following his graduation, Scalia attended Harvard Law School and received his L.L.B. After law school, Scalia spent six years from
In the decision of the Miller V Oregon case the supreme court recognized the need for facts and not only legal arguments to establish the judgement of social legislation. Louis Brandeis the chief counsel for the state of Oregon used social science data to prove the judgement of Oregon's law to restrict the hours a woman could
On January 01, 2017 at approximately 7:14 PM I, Deputy Bowring, was stopped by a Barbara Fish who advised me that she need my assistance, down the road. Barbara stated that she thinks her friend’s husband is deceased. I followed Barbara to the address of 9999 E. FM 2966 Yantis, Texas.
To illustrate the subjectivity of DNA forensic a study was carried out by Itiel E. Dror and Greg Hampikian. The study entailed taking DNA from a real crime scene in Georgia that involved a Kerry Robinson who was indicted and then sentenced to prison for rape. As a part of his trial process a DNA test was carried out on him and it was found that he could not be excluded. Resuming to the study, a mixed sample of DNA evidence was given to 17 expert analysts who were asked to interpret the DNA sample. In the end their findings were inconsistence, with only one of them findings matching the judgement that
What is DNA testing? DNA testing is used regularly throughout our country. As technology improves, government databases and formating becomes stronger. With this, the government is accurately able to solve crimes and save lives. DNA testing is an incredible device in which real life applications are solved with simple identification. Forensic
The suspects linked to her death were her mother, Brenda Waudby, and a 14-year-old male babysitter. Brenda had left her 2 children, Jenna and her sister, under the care of the babysitter on the afternoon of January 21, 1997. Just after midnight, the babysitter found that Jenna had stopped breathing. His mother called for an ambulance and Jenna was rushed to the Peterborough Civic Hospital. [6,13] An emergency physician at the hospital observed signs of possible sexual assault; rectal stretching and tears and a curly hear in her vulva. However, when he performed the autopsy, Dr. Smith failed to do a complete sexual assault examination. He did examine her external vaginal area but failed to take any swabs. Moreover, even though he collected the hair, he did not submit it for forensic analysis.[4,5]. Subsequently, Brenda was charged with murder based on Dr. Smith’s timing of Jenna’s injuries. Fortunately, her lawyer managed to convince the Crown that the timing was wrong and the charge was withdrawn.