The Assistant District Attorney, Queens County, New York, Claude Stuart was the lead prosecutor in a murder case, titled, People v. Tyronne Johnson. Johnson was tried for the murder of Leroy Vann Tony. Johnson was convicted of murder and sentenced to the term of 20 years to life. After serving 13 years of the prison sentence, the conviction of the defendant was overturned. There was a determination that the prosecutor, Claude Stuart withheld evidence from the defense which was the reason the judgment was overturned. During the course of the trial, the defense counsel raised questions in reference to a police report containing witness information that could prove favorable for the defense. During the trial, the Justice, Honorable Jaime Rios questioned Assistant District Attorney Stuart regarding the witness location information from that police report. The Respondent replied that he made several attempts to contact the witness but was not successful. The respondent continued to deny his awareness of the location of that witness. Further investigation revealed that ADA Stuart had knowledge of the witness location in question due to the fact that he met the witness at her place of employment on a recent occasion. The Court determined that ADA Stuart’s response to the question asked by the Justice was false. Respondent did not correct the error at the trial. The Board of Professional Responsibility recommended and imposed a three year suspension for Claude Stuart as
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)
Hey, Cory, I researched and found an article about a man named Harold J. Stewart, a 42-year-old high school dropout, who defended himself in a murder case in Prince George's County, whereas he was accused of beating a sleeping man to death with a baseball bat. (Casteneda, 2008) Stewart’s pro se trial only lasted three days; where is the fairness in this prosecution? The jury only deliberated for about an hour. It seems like Stewart never had a chance; considering, at the most, it takes at least more than a day even to hear evidence in a murder trial. It was faith because the jurors found Stewart not guilty of first-degree murder and not guilty of second-degree murder. (Casteneda, 2008) You know there is a saying a man who represents himself
As a result, years later a lawyer from Clarendon county heard about the case of George Stinney. Even though he grew studied law in the area, he had never known about it. He thought it was unbelievable that the trial was not given due process. He convinced a judge to reopen the case and give George a fair trial. This case went to the supreme court where his case was heard and he was exonerated (Hutchins).
Both Steve and Dwight Hammond were tried for arson under the federal Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The original judge, U.S.
Special Agent Duane Deaver, who was an expert in the field of forensic serology and bloodstain pattern interpretation, testified in the case of “State of North Carolina v. George Earl Goode” that although he found no visible bloodstain located on defendant's boots, a chemical test indicated the presence of blood, the type of which could not be determined. Agent Deaver did not detect any visible bloodstains on defendant's coveralls, hat, or boxer shorts. It was Agent Deaver's opinion that the absence of blood on any of defendant's clothing had no exculpatory effect. On March 30, 1992 defendant was charged with two counts of first degree murder and one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon. Defendant was tried before a jury, and on November 19, 1993 the jury found defendant guilty of all charges. Following a capital sentencing proceeding, the jury acclaimed sentences of death for the murder convictions. In accordance with the jury's recommendation, the trial court entered one sentence of death for the first degree murder conviction. He was sentenced to forty years imprisonment for the murders and the robbery with a dangerous weapon of Leon and
police commissioner is clear from the ad. In addition, the jury heard the testimony of a
At first, I was certain that it was not justice served in the case, but I had to attend for more information as in the article wasn’t all the details around this compelling case, and my opinion changed completely. I found the whole history in the New York Magazines. In this article, is seen the defendant guilty because he lied in their testimonies more than once, and when someone lies to us, we believe that he might do something wrong instead of that he might be nervous or afraid that everyone thinks something that it wasn’t true. Nevertheless, it was not enough evidence and non-witnesses that collaborate their history, and the jury was overwhelmed because the state took their freedom for four days, they only want to get home. On the other
Ms. Tyler is a 40 year old African-American female accused of first degree assault after witnesses saw Ms. Tyler splashed liquid fire, a liquid drain cleaner, onto another woman’s face, thus plashing five bystanders. The court order Mrs. Tyler was referred sometime after for an evaluation for her criminal responsibility, and to evaluate her competency to stand trial (CST). I met with Mrs. Tyler who was being held at the Southern County Detention Center. I informed Mrs. Tyler that the results of the evaluation would be released to the courts and that the results may be used against her in a court of law. I advice Ms. Tyler she would need to sign a formed consent in order to begin the process. Ms. Tyler gave her written consent to be evaluated.
The court reasoned that this testimony was crucial to the accused’ defense in that it “caused the appellant to engage in illegal conduct by methods of persuasion.” Ortiz at
Cortez, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3565, at *1. Cortez, the plaintiff, sought to introduce evidence of the defendant’s three 9 year-old convictions for theft of a vehicle and evading arrest. Id. at *4. The defendant testified and acknowledges that he was confused when he spoke with police at the scene. Id. at *6. The court of appeals applied the Theus factors and reasoned that the defendant’s possible dishonesty was not similar to the crimes for which he was convicted for in 2003 and this was not a case that turned on witness credibility since the investigating officer testified and his report was admitted into
Johnson further contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to exclude the Notice to Defendant and the OPD Form because the documents’ probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Specifically, Johnson asserts that the documents should have been excluded because they indicate that he had a pending criminal case, and that they indicate that he is indigent. The State, for its part, asserts that the documents were critical to establish that the contraband at issue here belonged to Johnson, and that any prejudice may have suffered did not substantially outweigh the evidence’s probative value. We agree with the State.
Based on the information from the informant, the police started an investigation and eventually submitted an affidavit requesting a warrant to search three residences and automobiles. A facially valid search warrant was issued and pursuant to the warrant the police conducted their search. Leon (defendant) and the other defendants filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search and the district court granted the motions, holding that the affidavit did not establish probable cause. The United States Supreme Court granted
The defendants filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that expert witness Lawrence F. Stewart, director of the Forensic Services Division of the United States Secret Service, had committed perjury in his testimony on behalf of the prosecution. Motion for new trial was denied by the court on the basis that defendants cannot escape the fact that the jury acquitted both defendants of making false statements relating to the existence of the $60 agreement, and the fact that ample evidence supports the charges (Custom edition for Indiana Wesleyan University. 2007. p. 42).
Robert Crowe studied law at Yale University and become state attorney on 1917. He is famous for winning the case by imposing death penalty on Thomas Fitzgerald, who had plead guilty for the murder of 6-year-old Janet Wilkinson. Robert Crowe later prosecuted Leopold and Loeb with the same agenda, to give them both death penalty. He competed against famous Clarence Darrow.
In the matter of International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 251 and Michael S. Bearse, 01-CB-172600, the Administrative Law Judge determined that the agency’s principal witness perjured herself repeatedly. Exhibit A, slip op at 4, n.4. By letter dated August 22, 2017, I asked the Regional Director what action he intended to take in connection with the finding that his Afion and principal witness committed perjury. Exhibit B. Because I did not receive a response, on September 7, 2017, I called and wrote the Regional Director to ask whether he intended to take any action, I have yet to receive