The Life Of Bennett Barbour

There is another man that has been wrongly accused for what he knew he didn’t do but was still considered guilty. Marvin Anderson was a person with good heart and lived with his girlfriend and had a good life till he was mistaken for a criminal. First, Anderson was considered guilty for accusing a woman of another race and attacked her. Anderson was considered an assaulter and put into a testimony of a white-victim (Anonymous). Here his is being considered a criminal of a woman of another race to the trail and being a testimony of the victim that had said that he was he one that had assaulted her. However, when Anderson was in prisoned, his lawyer has been trying to see if they would do a DNA test to prove if it was him or

Anderson’s lawyer at trial and on appeal provided obviously and grossly inadequate representation. The failures of defense counsel are overwhelmingly sins of omission, especially the failure to investigate. This is proven true as over half of the exonerees from the innocence project claim government misconduct throughout their trials. This also ties in with government misconduct. Common forms of misconduct made by prosecutors are : withholding exculpatory evidence from defense, deliberately mishandling, mistreating or destroying evidence, allowing witnesses they know or should know are not truthful to testify, pressuring defense witnesses not to testify, relying on fraudulent forensic experts, making misleading arguments that overstate the probative value of testimony. Government misconduct took on a major role throughout the entire case in prosecuting Anderson. The innocence project mentions this, “In the years after Anderson’s conviction, when DNA testing had become widely available, Anderson sought to prove his innocence of the crime. After his lawyers were told by the police, prosecutor, and court that the rape kit and its contents had been destroyed, Anderson contacted the Innocence Project and his case was accepted in 1994.” All the evidence had been destroyed, wonder how that happened? It is undeniable that foul play is present within

The Leslie Faber rape took place in the Scherzer’s basementon the afternoon of March 1, 1989. During the trial the defence attorneys did everything they could to try

People who have been rape have the choice of squeezing charges against their culprit in criminal court. In a criminal case, the part of the person who was rape, best case scenario, is essentially one of furnishing the prosecutor with confirmation to convict the charged culprit. Any wrongdoing may bring about physical damage, the passing of a friend or family member, mental injury as well as the loss of property. These casualties may need to confront the one to which they are charging, yet they certainly have the privilege to look for criminal change. Notwithstanding criminal court, casualties can sue their culprit in common court to get money related harms. There are a few choices offered to a casualty in a common court continuing. In the event that a casualty is not happy with the aftereffects of a criminal indictment, the casualty may bring a common activity against the culprit. Common change gives opportunities to casualties to recoup for both financial misfortunes and not so distant costs that may emerge. Common suits might be brought against individuals or elements.

I had a hard time picking my Mercy Moment, but after reading this article on Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson, I knew this would be a good topic. Ronald was charged of an act he never committed. He served eleven years behind bars for no reason at all. One thing that made Cotton seem more suspicious was his previous relations with a white woman. He was in a relationship with a white woman for a couple of months so, to the police he seemed even more guilty. Ronald was then convicted to serve life in prison with fifty-five plus years. He then was convicted of another rape that also happened that night and was punished with two life sentences along with one-hundred and eighty plus years. It was not until eleven years served, 1995, that Cotton was founded not guilty after taking a DNA test that was just newly founded. Thompson grieved for picking Cotton, she felt horrible. She was happy to see him behind bars, the man she believed hurt her. But, after cops showed up to her door to tell her Cotton was not the one who raped her it was Poole, she immediately felt terrible. She then approached Cotton and told her how sorry she was and how terrible she felt. Cotton, with the heart he has, forgave her. They then went out to write a book together titled, Picking Cotton. In this book it talks about the trial, how Thompson felt after

During the trial, the defense questioned the victims ' credibility during cross-examination because of their criminal records. Yet again, rape culture has surfaced. A woman does not deserve to get raped no matter her criminal record. No person deserves or asks to get raped. Rape cases are always fought back by blaming the victim and making the victim seem like a bad person and that is why there will always be

A man by the name of Darryl Hunt was apprehended at the age of 19. He was charged and convicted of a murder that he did not commit in the year of 1984 in North Carolina. During the trial, the testing of DNA results proved the innocence of Mr. Hunt in 1994, however it took an additional 10 years of legal appeals to free him. The death of Deborah Sykes, a 25 year old copy editor at a local newspaper, whom was sexually assaulted and stabbed to death is what Mr. Hunt was accused of doing. Until this day this crime still touches many including Mr. Hunt.

accused of sexually assaulting two thirteen year old girls. During the court trial, court officials

Their testimonies were ultimately proven to have little to no effect on their cases. Even after the evidence came back negative for vaginal tearing consistent with rape, 8 out of 9 of the boys were still convicted and sentenced. Even after solid evidence was presented in defense of the boys they still found themselves of prejudice and hearsay evidence from not only Price but other “victims” from the car implicating them as “armed with knives” and that they were “attacked by a group of black teenagers” when reporting to the city sheriff. The persecution systematically tried to paint the boys as criminals and rapist even if the evidence wouldn’t stick and support their claim. It was even said that many years later, Judge Horton said that Dr. Lynch confided that the women had not been raped and had laughed when he examined them. The only reason this evidence clearly proving the rape claim false by Dr. Lynch didn’t come to light was because he felt that if he testified for the defense, his practice in Jackson County would be over. The defense, even if rendered ineffective used tactics to systematically breakdown each claim the prosecution and witnesses made against the boys. Ultimately, Judge Callahan repeatedly interrupted Leibowitz's cross-examinations, calling defense questions "arguing with the witness," "immaterial,

Rule 412 which is the state of Tennessee’s version of the rape shield law, is designed to protect the victims of rapes and sexual assaults. The protection offered by laws of this nature was to prevent the victims of these heinous assaults from being re-traumatized on the witness stand during cross examination from the alleged perpetrators (Brody & Acker, 2010). Although I am an avid supporter of the right to a fair trial, I feel compelled to be the voice for those who are often subjected to constant criticism from fellow peers, courts, news and now social media. Rule 412, although sound in premise behind its development, lacks concession with the changing times. There are far too many loopholes in our own rape shield law which begs the question if other state’s rape shield laws truly offer the protection that they were designed to employ. Capers (2013, p. 827) reports that the ongoing issue with rape victims today is the fear of having their past history put on trial and not the event that took place. It was because of this, that many rapes go unreported. In the early 70’s, legislatures and courts began to rethink allowing an alleged victim’s past sexual history admissible in court. This prompted questions as to whether that prior information was actually useful in a current case. The second question that arose was to whether the courts were actually trying the victim during the trial rather than the alleged perpetrator. This is how rape shield laws came about. Then,

In 1994, Christy Brzonkala, a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, stated that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford raped her. A year later, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech’s Sexual Assault Policy. After two hearings, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. At some point throughout the duration of these hearings, Morrison personally admitted to having sexual contact with Brzonkala after she said “no” twice, however still affirmed that the sexual act was consensual. Crawford, however, stated that he left the room before any sexual activity commenced and was later charged with a lesser offense that was unrelated to sexual conduct. Being that both Morrison and Crawford were valued varsity members of the prestigious Virginia Tech football team and worried about the continuity of their athletic careers, they made an appeal through the university’s administrative system to reduce their suspensions. After being processed, the punishments were set aside

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.

This case is a well known case that has to do with the supposed rape and burglary of a woman from North Carolina on June 6th, 1984 and the case involved an eyewitness named Jennifer Thompson-Cannino, she was a college student at the time of her assault, the person being charged of these crimes was a man named Ronald Cotton and the story was that someone broke into her house, the assailant tried to rape her and she thought she got a good look at the person. In a photo and live lineup she thought Cotton was 100% her attacker.

Way to set the standard for an egregious crime Honorable Robert B. Young. Your understanding of this crime and your implementation of punishment based off how the predator feels, will have everlasting effects on all victims of sexual assault seeking justice for being violated. Judge this decision makes me suspicious, I could imagine other’s feel this way as well, because it likely put’s your personal behavior into question due to a reasonable persons understanding of the severity of this

Religion in an age of science by Barbour In his book “religion in an age of science” Barbour explain the relationship between science and religion. According, to the author many people have the opinion that science is based on “ objection, universal, rational and evidence of solid observation.” religion, on the other hand, is based on “subjective, emotional, faith and traditional.” He made it clear that science and religion deals with philosophical assumptions. Due to that there is the need to consider philosophy when addressing science and religion. philosophically, science deal with epistemology (dealing with reliable knowledge) and Metaphysics (dealing with reality in the universe), while religion also deals with ethical norm, scriptures