The Unethical Behavior of Biegler and McCarthy in Anatomy of a Murder and the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct

Simon Gittany was a male perpetrator. In almost 4 out of 5 intimate partner homicides the perpetrator was a male (Australian Institute of Criminology 1998).

On June 12,1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered. Their bodies were discovered outside Nicole Simpson's condominium. Nicole Simpson was the estranged wife of the famous football player and T.V. star O.J. Simpson.

On April 28, 2004, after closing on his dream house, William McGuire was brutally murdered. His body was severed into three pieces, placed into three matching Kenneth Cole suitcases and then dumped in the Chesapeake Bay. The investigation of his murder would span three years, involve two different investigative teams and end in the conviction of his wife, Melanie McGuire, based on circumstantial evidence (Glatt, 2008).

The book that I am going to introduce is Outrage: The Five Reasons Why O.J. Got Away With Murder, written by Vincent Bugliosi, and was published on June 17, 1996. We all know that Nichole Simpson and Ronald Goldman were stabbed to death and their bodies were discovered on June 12, 1994 early morning. It was said that after a car chase, O.J. was found with $9,000 I cash, his passport, disguise, and a gun. O.J. Simpson who is her ex-husband was acquitted October 3, 1995, for their deaths in a trial that riveted the nation and divided people along racial differences. In 1997, he was ordered to pay a little over $33 million for their deaths. O.J. Simpson is still serving time in prison for things like kidnapping, robbery, burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, and numerous other charges. Mr. Bugliosi sums up five reason why the case was lost. Those five can be labeled as the jury, the change in venue or settings, the judge allowing the defense to play the race card, the stupidity of the prosecution throughout the trial, and lastly the summation of what should really have been done. But in honesty when the media started reporting about this case it was already falling apart.

Scott Lee Peterson was once married to Lacy Peterson in California. They were expecting their first child together when Laci disappeared on December 24th, 2002, Laci was 8 months pregnant. Scott was not immediately named a suspect in Laci’s disappearance. Scott told detectives that he was out fishing that morning 90 miles from their Modesto home. The detectives were thrown off by how calm Scott was and Scott’s lack of questioning within the first few weeks of Laci being gone.

The distinction between the two cases is that Lane tried to conceal his misconduct. He tries to deceive the court and then choosing to not respond to the court. I agree with the courts reasoning because it will teach the person their misconduct is unacceptable and if it happens again they will barred from practicing law.

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

The first expert witness represented the Commonwealth of Virginia and is a licensed clinical psychologist. Dr. Ronald M. Boggio’s testimony targeted information from a personal interview with the defendant, he also rendered psychological tests to Mr. Allen to assist in his testimony. When reading the case, it appeared that Dr. Boggio’s had been Mr. Allen’s psychologist is the past or may still be currently. It wasn’t very clear, regardless, he had broad knowledge and experience with the defendant Mr. Allen which leaves his testimony tainted in a sense. The question remains, was his actions ethical or not.

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.

``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the

The entire book was based on the transcripts of court, how is it possible that the authors of the book knew the dialogue between these two men. The dialogue was not in the court transcript, and definitely not recorded, so that has to mean the authors elaborated it. Although it fits in perfectly with the story, almost too perfect, it makes no sense how the authors had access to

Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building owned by his landlord, Mr. Quinn, where he has been working on an invention that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store has contacted Mr. Stevens, and would like to sell his product exclusively. Despite the fact that Mr. Stevens and the store never signed a physical contract, he verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units. Now, the chain store has just contacted Mr. Stevens via letter, demanding that he deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately (Southern New Hampshire University, n.d.).

Not every DWI (driving while intoxicated) case ends the same, some have different verdicts in the courtroom. The Ethan Couch case is a great example of why punishing drunk drivers should be more enforced and not so lenient. The teen from Texas was driving drunk with two other passengers in his pickup truck on June of 2013, when he hit and killed four people. Ethan Couch was tried as a juvenile and charged with four counts of Intoxication Manslaughter, but was only sentenced to ten years of probation. His lawyers argued that it was due to “affluenza”, which means that he came from a wealthy family and it prevented him from understanding what was right from wrong, so he was not held accountable for his actions. The judge who took on this case

Lying on the Couch by Irvin D. Yalom has been both entertaining and interesting from a counseling standpoint in that it provides a scandalous and as was in most of the cases, a look at what could go wrong if ethics in a clinical counseling setting go awry. Following the characters of Seymour Trotter, Earnest Lash, and Marshal Streider in working with their clients and with each other the ethical lessons to be learned become obviously apparent, if not emotionally painful. Although, numerous issues arise throughout the book, there were at least three that will be covered within the context of this writing. In consideration of each of these ethical breaches there will be dialog on the nature of the ethical issue or violation, where the ACA ethical code applies, ramifications of the ethical issue or violation on both parties, and application of Kitchener?s five primary ethical principles that were involved or violated. In addition, the justification offered by the characters in the book for their actions or considered actions, application to the situation in the setting of Clinical Mental Health counseling, and indication of personal response to the situation presented. Understanding that the use of these ethical principles and considerations as they apply in counseling are unequivocally valuable tools in helping a practitioner in working with clients to make comprehensive decisions that will not create conflict within their ethical parameters and are aligned with the laws

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later