Nix V. Williams Case Study

The newly discovered evidence can't merely be “cumulative”, nor “such as would merely impeach the credibility of an adverse witness”. Cizler v. Cizler, 19 A.D.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1st Dept., 1963).

21). Initially the district attorney was hesitant to prosecute Williams, feeling the evidence that the FBI had collected was too weak to obtain a conviction, but after Williams failed three polygraph tests administered by the FBI and multiple eyewitnesses emerged that confirmed that Williams was seen with several of the victims prior to their disappearance, the district attorney decided to indict Williams on the murders of Jimmy Payne and Nathan Cater. (trutv 25) The prosecution’s main evidence were fibers and dog hairs collected from the bodies of the victims that matched samples taken from Williams’s home. Ultimately, Williams was found guilty for the murders of the two men (Bardsley & Bell, n.d., p. 32), and was also linked to ten other “pattern killings” that were part of the spree (Bardsley & Bell, n.d., p. 28). Although he still claims that he is innocent of the murders, the Atlanta Child Murders came to an end after he was stopped on that bridge.

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

Facts: After Williams was arrested for the disappearance of a 10 year old girl police told his counsel that they would be transporting him from Davenport, Iowa where he was arraigned to Des Moines, Iowa where he was to be held with out questioning him about the case. Eventually after talking with the transporting officer he made incriminating statements and gave information on the area that the body of the child could be found. A large team of volunteers that was actually searching around the area where the body was found was then called off

The city of Atlanta had experienced over a two year period from 1979-1981 of egregious acts of murders committed on more than twenty African American adolescent males. However, Wayne Williams, a native of Atlanta, was the center of law enforcement investigation, which implicated his involvement in at least two of the children murders around that time. Nonetheless, law enforcement linked Wayne Williams to those murders because of detailed evidence found on the victims, which was later discovered that evidence was from Williams apartment (Curriden, 1992). Furthermore, the evidence which was found was a unique fiber from the carpet of Williams apartment and the number of people having this fiber was very small in number (Curriden, 1992)). The fiber evidence was the main part of the case to associate Williams with

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

The constitutional issue later appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where they discussed the case’s “two separate issues, a voluntariness issue regarding a confession and a harmless error issue,” as stated by Mr. Jarrett during the trial at the United States Supreme Court (“Arizona v. Fulminante. Oyez.org”).” In Arizona v. Fulminante, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to uphold the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision: Fulminante would receive a new trial and the confession would not be allowed; this would be for future law reference. The Supreme Court, profoundly, ruled that a coerced confession could not account as evidence against the person being tried (“Arizona v. Fulminante”. Lawschool).

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

When the public heard of the crime, the police perilously needed someone to blame. If a slayer of the 14-year old Mary Phagan were not found soon, public uproar would become uncontrollable. The public needed a victim

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.