Leonard Peltier Case Study

The evidence linking Peltier to the shooting of the either of the agents is non-existent. First, there are major problems with linking Peltier to any gun that may have caused a fatal injury. According to FBI documentation, the FBI found a damaged AR-15 rifle in the burned out car of another AIM activist, Robert Robideau, who was also at the Jumping Bull Compound on the day of June 26, 1975 (Incident). The FBI later would assert that the gun was Peltier's, and that it was matched to a shell casing found in the trunk of one the agents cars.

Annually hundreds of wrongfully convicted bystanders are let out of prison, some having served decades for crimes they didn’t commit. On January 13th, 1999, Hae Min Lee of Woodlawn high school was murdered and her body later found in linkin park. The person convicted? Adnan Syed, an ex-boyfriend. With, the majority of the evidence easily disproven by cell tower records, an alibi not ever addressed, and jurors who openly admit his culture was a factor, Adnan Syed deserves the right to a new and fair trial.

Watching the Frontline Confessions documentary made me think about a lot of things. First of all I feel that what Detective Robert Glen Ford did was wrong. He abused his power of the badge to harshly interrogate innocent men. He spent continuous hours interrogating Daniel Williams in a small room, pressuring him into confessing to something that he didn’t commit. Ford threatened Daniel with the death penalty multiple times. When Daniel told him his side of the story, he called him a liar and said, “If you don’t start telling me the truth, you’re going to die.” I think one of the ironic things is that the detective was the only one lying in the interrogation. When Daniel Williams took the polygraph test he passed, but

Often, the media is very quick to jump on a story as they want to be the “very first” to bring the news story since they compete with other news outlets. Add the issues of law enforcement sources who leak information to news sources, and you have the potential of someone being found guilty of public opinion. As was seen in the case of Richard Jewell, a man who acted heroically was scrutinized and ridiculed by the media all because law enforcement wanted to question Jewell further. Even though Richard Jewell was questioned and his rights were read to him, he was at no time arrested or detained, and it seems there never existed any probable cause for law enforcement to do so. However, the media painted Jewell as the bomber, called him a “fat,

The initial concept deals with the Fourth Amendment of search and seizure without probable cause. This first correlation is during the beginning of the movie, after the murder has already been committed with the body found, where Police Officer Sam Wood notices Tibbs waiting for the train to come. Officer Wood automatically becomes suspicious of Tibbs and begins to think he is the killer, since he is a black man in the south, so he ventures into the train station. The officer does not question Tibbs at all or even ask who he is, but orders him to stand with his hands and feet apart. Tibbs tries reaching for his jacket with his badge in it, but is denied when Officer Wood pulls his gun out. Then with gun in hand he begins to search Tibbs removing anything in his pockets. This type of activity definitely violates the fourth amendment, since there was no actual probable cause or evidence believing Tibbs was the one who committed the murder. The officer had no probable cause other than that it was a black man sitting alone in the train station in the middle of the night. The race of an individual does not qualify for a reason to arrest them despite what people think. Tibbs shortly after being brought in was declared innocent and was confirmed an experienced detective. Officer Wood then comprehended his mistakes with his actions, and

In 1982, Alton Logan was charged and sentenced to life in prison for the first-degree murder of a McDonald’s security guard in Illinois after three witnesses identified him despite the fact that several family members gave testimonies stating that Logan was home in the bed when the murder occurred (CBSNews, 2008). Around the same time attorneys Dale Coventry and Jamie Kunz were defending a man named Andrew Wilson was facing similar charges in the same jurisdiction who confessed to them that he killed the McDonalds security guard, and that Alton Logan was innocent (CBSNews, 2008). The two attorneys, being bound by the Attorney-Client Privilege and their duty of confidentiality to their client they did not come forward with the information that could have relieved Logan from the charges and his life sentence. Wilson gave the attorney’s permission to disclose the information upon his death and they took necessary measures to preserve the information until the time came when they would be able to share it (CBSNews, 2008).

In the video “The Confessions” presented by Frontline, a murder of a women that was committed by one man, quickly resulted into a false gang murder-rape scene committed by eight men. The victim, Michelle Bosko, was seen to be raped and killed in her apartment in Norfolk, Virginia. From the video, it has been proven that seven out of the eight men that confessed were innocent, but somehow they all received an unequal punishment. Because the innocent men admitted to a murder that they didn’t commit out of fear, they were all sentenced to some time in prison. The head detective, Glenn Ford, intimidated the men so much that they either were convinced that they were at the crime scene or they told him every detail that he wanted to hear.

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.

Begging the question is a type of logical fallacy that “avoids the argumentative process” (McInerny 109). An example of a begging the question fallacy is when my friend argued for his point that Panera Bread is the healthiest fast food alternative restaurant. My friend, Tim, stated that “Salads and fruit smoothies are the healthiest types of food. Since, Panera Bread serves several types of salads and fruit smoothies this makes Panera Bread the healthiest fast food alternative.” Tim’s statement exemplifies begging the question fallacy because the conclusion, “Panera Bread is the healthiest fast food alternative”, does not have logical premise and reasoning behind the argument. Tim did not provide any factual information proving the fact that salads and fruit smoothies are the healthiest food option. Also, Tim did not compare the actual calories in the food at Panera compared to a typical fast food restaurant, such as McDonalds. In summation, Tim completely ignored the reasoning that backed up his conclusion, which was Panera is the healthiest fast food alternative, thus making the conclusion a begging the question fallacy.

In my opinion I think the FBI has a job to do and while the way they went about catching these criminals was wrong in a sense but I think the FBI did what they had to do. If these two criminals interfered with FBI territory or regulations in any way in which I believe they did by the crimes they committed then the FBI in my opinion has the right to step in and do their job. The FBI probably could have waited until the two men came to US soil but there was no telling if that would have happened and the FBI didn’t go to Russia to pursue them so I think

The United States prides itself on having robust, deeply entrenched measures implemented across its core agencies, including the police and criminal justice system, to safeguard against wrongfully convicting people who, after further reflection, are factually found to be innocent. As citizens, we have been educated to trust, among other things, that our systems protect the notions that one is innocent until proven guilty and that prosecution must prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, wrongful convictions are more prevalent than we might think. In particular, the publicity of hundreds of cases over the last few decades has put a spotlight on this indisputable

“Wrongful convictions happen every week in every state in this country. And they happen for all the same reasons. Sloppy police work. Eyewitness identification is the most- is the worst type almost. Because it is wrong about half the time. Think about that.” (Grisham). Wrongful convictions can happen to anyone, at anytime. Grisham implies wrongful convictions happen for the same reasons, careless police work as well as eyewitness identification. An eyewitness identification is a crucial aspect in detective work because it essentially locates the person at the crime scene. This is the worst cause of wrongful convictions because it is wrong half the time.

We hear in the news about police misconduct, use of excessive force, embezzlement, but one thing I found while researching what I should write this paper on is the Wrongful convictions of innocent men and women, that spend years in prison being innocent, and there is nothing that gets done till it’s too late. Some wrongful convictions are honest mistakes, but many times law enforcement and prosecutors lose sight of the obligation of ensuring truth and justice, and are focused on their conviction rates. As with any job, they are honest people and ones that just don’t care and are corrupt, this exists in the criminal justice system. One way to prove someone is innocent now is through DNA testing, but even at all levels of a criminal investigation there could be misconduct or mishandling of evidence, which then causes the evidence to become compromised.

In the article, “Dangerous Minds” Malcolm Gladwell first grasps his reader’s attention via crime stories, then goes on elaborating the criminal profiling processes. He defines the types of criminal profiling, whodunit and hedunit. In whodunit, “the traditional detective story…centers on the detective search for the culprit” while in hedunit, “the nest is narrowed. The crime doesn’t initiate our search for the killer. It defines the killer for us.” He emphasizes on the profiling type with the best advantage and explains its significance. Using the FBI agent John Douglas’ investigation stories and profiling techniques to support his claims, he explains the structure of criminal profiling and how it is applied to cases. However, is this type of profiling effective? The author raises this question to evaluate the FBI criminal profiling. He asks a rhetorical question, “but how useful is that profile, really?” to make the readers think and follows up this question by a counter argument which set the author’s state of neutrality in the article. With analogies, crime stories and group research analyses as supportive evidence; the author informs and explains the flaws of FBI profiling, its problems and its ineffectiveness. As a result, the author uses the counter argument to refute his previous claims

     There has been many inmates sentenced to death row that innocent. Since 1973, more than 99 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence, The Social Psychology of Police Interrogation: The