The Case And Remedies Of An Arkansas Capital Murder Case

The infamous “Green River Killer” otherwise known as Gary Ridgway was one of the more interesting cases that I had come across while researching criminals to choose as a topic, mainly because there was so much media coverage regarding this case. Gary was convicted of killing at least forty eight plus people, and had confessed to killing more than seventy people; I can only really wonder what could cause him to commit such atrocious crimes, which is what led me to choosing him as my topic of interest for this paper. I will be covering everything from his early life all the way to where he is now and everything in-between, all leading up to my theories on how he became infamously known as “The Green River Killer.”

Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel do not conduct a field study as Frohmann does, instead they examined all sexual assault cases cleared by arrest in Miami Florida in 1997. They did however replicate Frohmann’s design of interviewing a sample of the prosecutors who handled the cases. By using this different method of research, Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel’s are able to show the frequency in which prosecutors used discrepant accounts and ulterior motives to reject cases. This extends upon Frohmann’s research. Their findings that, “charging decisions primarily reflect the prosecutor’s assessment of the likelihood of conviction” (Spohn, et al. 2001, p. 206) is consistent with Frohmann 's Findings. They also agreed with Frohmann’s categories of typifications, however they found that a substantial amount of cases were rejected for reasons other than discrediting the victim such as, the victim’s failure to appear for a pretrial interview, refusal to cooperate in the prosecution of the case, or admission that the charges were fabricated (Spohn, et al. 2001).

In David M. Oshinsky’s book, Capital Punishment on Trial: Furman v. Georgia and the Death Penalty in Modern America, he discussed the case of Furman v. Georgia. He explores the controversy that capital punishment holds in the United States of America. The death penalty has been in practice for many centuries. For example, “In Massachusetts, where religion had played a key role in settlement, crimes like blasphemy, witchcraft, sodomy, adultery, and incest became capital offenses, through juries sometimes hesitated to convict” (Oshinsky, 2010). For the punishment of death these offenses do not fit the crime. However, capital punishment at this time was rarely criticized. The death penalty demanded many executions including public ones. Many of these were hangings and were public events. After the American Revolution the death penalty began to be questioned. For example, Benjamin Rush stated, “Capital punishments are the offspring of monarchial governments. Kings believe that they possess their crowns by a divine right. They assume the divine power of taking away human life” (Oshinsky, 2010). By the 1840’s there were organized groups opposing the death penalty such as the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Within the coming years, the support for capital punishment fluctuated. Throughout the book, Oshinsky explores the many cases leading up to the Furman v. Georgia decision.

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

While all of the topics that we have covered throughout this course have been troubling, the topic of prosecutorial misconduct is to me one of the most distressing; the mere thought of the possibility of misconduct by prosecutors gives me the chills, and the numerous examples featured within the assigned chapter readings, in addition to the online articles, only further my skepticism in the legal system and those individuals holding official positions. There appears to be a lot of similarities between prosecutorial misconduct and the topics that we discussed as possible reasons for faulty forensic science, such as a common trust bias in police officials, lack of universal standards, and other cognitive biases such as confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

Vanessa Vermont, a gorgeous woman found dead in her own kitchen, laying on the floor with a fatal head wound on the back of her head. Just recently she bought a new broiler and need and outlet over her kitchen counter, something her husband could do. And it is right where she was murdered. There is also a woman’s briefcase on the floor near the kitchen. Which means Mrs. Vermont was leaving, which in turn could’ve enraged the husband.

Appellant Brady was found guilty of first degree murder by the Maryland Court system. During his trial hearing Brady admitted to participating in the organization and forethought of the crime with a partner, although plead that he himself did not commit the crime. After disclosing his involvement, Brady’s lawyer admitted to his guilt but asked for a lesser penalty since Brady didn’t commit the murder. Before trial Brady’s council asked for all relevant information to the trial and were given most, but not all of it. The withholding of evidence was a violation of due process laws in which a new trial was requested. A new trial was granted but only for sentencing and not a retrial of fact.

What did the prosecutor do wrong? How does immunity protect the prosecutor from the consequences of his or her misconduct?

Although governments have debated the death penalty since the beginning of time, the advent of mass media and Hollywood has increased the scrutiny that the death penalty has faced. Many movies were produced that followed the lives of people on death row.

Since the death penalty was reauthorized in 1976, 1,362 people have been executed, almost exclusively by the states, with most occurring after 1990. Texas has accounted for over one-third of modern executions and over four times as many as Virginia, the state with the second-highest number. The Walls Unit prison in downtown Huntsville, Texas is the nations busiest execution chamber.

To begin with, the job a prosecutor has is to gather the facts of the case, along with interviewing material witnesses, and study the evidence that was collected. Next, there may be two attorneys who work the case and both should make the case hold up in court. Finally, an example of a case “where the prosecutor was unethical was when Michael B. Nifong charged Duke university lacrosse team in 2007 with sexual assault, and other crimes, although the evidence collected did not prove that they were guilty.” (pg.)

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).

The purpose of this paper is to discuss and analyze the practices conducted by law enforcement during the investigation of the murder of Ashley Smith. The following pages will discuss the crime scene investigation, the evidence collection, the investigative steps following the initial crime scene investigation, the interviews of witnesses and suspects, and other strategies performed by the acting case investigators. Constitutional challenges have surfaced regarding specific pieces of critical evidence and a section of this paper will analyze the admissibility of this evidence. Lastly this case’s law enforcement processes will be contrasted with textbook processes in an effort to determine the validity of the case’s outcome.

This is case that faces Mary Barnett. The issue in this case is that On January 23, the litigant, Mary Barnett, left Chicago to visit her life partner in San Francisco having left her six-month-old little girl, Alison, unattended in the apartment. Mary Barnett returned home a week later to find that her child had died of dehydration. She called the police and at first, to let them know that she had left her kid with a baby sitter. She later expressed that she had left the child and she didn 't mean to return, and that she knew Alison would die in a day or two. She has been accused of wrongdoing of second-degree murder; purposeful homicide without intention. In the event that she is sentenced, she could face up to eighteen years in prison. This piece of writing tries to give the verdict of the case after critically examining both prosecution and defendant side.

The Arkansas trial raised discussions about the demarcation of science from nonscience. Towards the end of the trial Judge Overton justified his decision by providing five criteria, which stated the definition of science. Discussions arose which argued for and against these criterias. One of the philosophers that claimed that creation science was indeed science was Larry Laudan. Laudan expressed his disappointment towards the decision of the trial, and stated that the trial failed to recognise the falsifiable theories that creationists made. Gilkey and Ruse were a couple of the philosophers however, that agreed with the decision arguing that creation science failed to comply with the standards of science especially through its conclusion of an unexplainable divine creator. In this essay, I will discuss the arguments that aid the demarcation of science from nonscience, and ultimately conclude with an