hearings is to further the transparency course as espoused by the sixth amendment of the

Alves, S. (2011, September 27). Lessons from the Amanda Knox Arrest. Retrieved April 13, 2012, from Indelibleinternational: http://indelibleinternational.com/index.php?pc=justArticle&ora=E0_70130&so=safety

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

The Sixth Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. It guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts and it was ruled that these rights are fundamental and important. The Sixth Amendment gives the accused the right to speedy and public trial by the impartial jury. The accused has the right to be informed of the nature and reason of accusation and also be confronted with the witness against him as well as obtaining witness in his favor. In this research paper I will provide a thorough analysis of these above rights and give some history of the 6th Amendment.

Amanda Knox was a young student from Washington who got stuck in the Italian courts system when she was accused of murdering her roommate, Meredith Kercher. This case is a big controversy because how the Italian court system and the United States court system differs. The evidence in this case changed the course of the convection because of how the evidence was collected and looked at. In the end Amanda Knox was able to come home with charges dropped, even after her appeal and the courts appeal (Docuworld, 2014). How the Italian courts handled this compared to how the United States would have handled this case is completely different.

One of the darkest moments for anyone is being the center of a criminal investigation. Many emotions can fuel statements that may not be in the best interest of the suspect. These statements can turn a suspect into a defendant relatively easy. Without proper, sufficient legal council, a defendant can be a convicted criminal. If the defendant was aware of his rights, the outcome could be inherently different. The United States is one of very few nations that will provide legal counsel for criminal matters. Every so often a person becomes a spectacle in our Judicial System and case law becomes of it. Sometimes, the case law is beneficial for the government such as Florence v Board of Chosen Freeholders of Burlington County, citing that strip searches of inmates regardless of the crimes they committed without probable cause is justified in the interest of inmate, staff, and jail safety. Other case law such as Miranda v. Arizona it reinforces constitutional rights for United States citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is case law that mandates the government to inform people of their constitutional rights during a criminal investigation. Many people often argue, so what. They are guilty, why do suspects have any rights anyway. Simply put, we are a Constitutional Democracy with established rules, norms and values. What makes our nation so wonderful is we are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Circumstantial evidence leading authorities to assume a person is

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

Cornell Law provides a substantial amount of raw information on the Due Process Clause, covering topics ranging from its meaning in the nineteenth century to court cases that interpret its definition today. The source mentions small details about due process, such as influential procedures that the clause almost always follows, and when due process applies to freedoms and liberties. However, the next two sources describe the amendments which incorporate due process. Dr. Chapman and Dr. Yoshino present the Fourteenth Amendment as a primary source, citing word for word each of its five sections to include the Due Process Clause. The two then go into detail describing the topics “Substantive Due Process”, “Procedural Due Process”, and “Incorporation of the Bill of Rights Against the States”, citing examples of when the Due Process Clause was used throughout history. Mr. Ryan not only a provides a primary source of the Fifth Amendment, one of the only two amendments that mention due process, but goes in depth on the topics of grand juries, double jeopardy, the Just Compensation Clause and self-incrimination, distinguishing them from the due process clause. He

DNA forensics can also narrow down suspect pools, exonerate innocent suspects, and link crimes together if the same DNA is found at both scenes. However, without existing suspects, a DNA profile cannot direct an investigation because current knowledge of genotype-phenotype relation is too vague for DNA phenotyping. For example, a profile from a first time offender that has no match in any database may give the information that the criminal is a left handed male of medium stature with red hair and freckles. It would be impossible to interview every man who fits that description. However, with available suspects, DNA forensics has many advantages over other forms of evidence. One is the longevity of DNA. Although it will deteriorate if exposed to sunlight, it can remain intact for centuries under proper conditions (Sachs, 2004). Because DNA is so durable, investigators can reopen old cases to reexamine evidence.

With the number of DNA exonerations growing in the recent years, wrongful convictions reveal disturbing trends and fissures in the justice system. It shows how broken the system is, and why it needs urgent fixing. According to Huff (1996), over ten thousand people are convicted wrongfully for serious crimes each year. This study established that factors leading to wrongful convictions are false eyewitnesses, a prejudiced jury, incompetent prosecutors, and suspects’ ignorance. Where DNA evidence clears a suspect, array of reasons emerge; misconduct, mistakes, to race and class factors. It is important to make DNA data available to attorneys in order to enable them mount a strong

The criminal trial process is an interesting process that takes place in Courtrooms all across the United States and throughout the globe. This study intends to set out the various steps in the criminal trial process in the American justice system. A trial is described as a "legal forum for resolving individual disputes, and in the case of a criminal charge, it is a means for establishing whether an accused person is legally guilty of an offense. The trial process varies with respect to whether the matter at issue is civil in nature or criminal. In either case, a jury acts as a fact-finding body for the court in assessing information and evidence that is presented by the respective parties in a case. A judge presides over the court and addresses all the legal issues that arise during the trial. A judge also instructs the jury how to apply the facts to the laws that will govern in a given case." (3rd Judicial District, 2012)

Although the case was covered vigorously by media throughout its entirety, the start of the trial attracted reporters from all over the world. Thus, the courtroom became overcrowded, leading to some media personnel having to sit at the defense table. Eventually the grueling process of conducting a murder trial came to an end on December 4, 2009. Amanda and Raffaele were found guilty on all counts in the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. Knox received a 26-year sentence and Sollecito received a 25-year sentence. Finally, Meredith’s family thought they could put the trial behind them and experience a sense of closure, but that wasn’t the cases. Both, Knox and Sollecito appealed their convictions. After going through two years of the appeal process, both convictions were overturned by an Italian jury (“Timeline”). It’s interesting because it appeared that there was strong evidence against both

DNA comparisons are crucial when investigating crimes. Amanda Christopher’s home had a significant amount of forensic evidence behind that has yet to be determined. The Supreme Court has analyzed the issue as to whether or not use storing and using DNA was considered constitutional. Although, Pennsylvania is silent on the issue, several states have seen the need for the use and storage of DNA that is obtained of arrestees charged of serious crimes, such as felonies and sexual offenses. Analyzing both the federal and other states provides some guidance as to whether or not the use of previously obtained DNA is constitutional.

In response, the news reporter Branzburg (as well as others involved Caldwell and Pappas) said that in order to gather information for news, a lot of the time they had to make promises and commitments not to reveal sources and keep discrepancy; that it was a part of their job description. To make reporters divulge confidences to a grand jury would deter potential sources and prevent the “free flow of information” protected by the First Amendment. (LexisNexis). Both reporters agreed that there were situations where testimonies should be given, but that the government had to provide a “compelling interest” or “sufficient grounds” are established that show the interrogation would provide relevant or useful evidence for the case. The reporters claimed that the First Amendment rights were violated upon the forced disclosure of confidential information by the court. “The heart of the claim is that the burden on newsgathering resulting from compelling reporters to disclose confidential information outweighs any public interest in obtaining the

Although there are many benefits of DNA fingerprinting of criminals, there are also some negative issues that cannot be overlooked. If the DNA evidence from the crime scene is not handled professionally and properly, it can lead to misinterpretation of the evidence and can also lead to a guilty person being freed and an innocent person being wrongly convicted. Some religions and organisations, such as the European Court of Human Rights, believe that DNA fingerprinting is a violation on the right to a private life. If the information from the database becomes available to insurance companies or employers, it is likely that discrimination will occur. Another negative issue, as stated by Flinders University Forensic Science chairman Adrian Linacre, is that ‘forensic evidence is not always dependable, as with any human activity and needs to be considered in context of a case’ (2011). According to statistics, there are over 4 million DNA samples collected from crime scenes being stored on the database, with approximately 1.5 million of these being innocent people.

Media such as mystery and crime television programs have made some procedures used by forensic scientists public knowledge so it would be easy for the perpetrator to know the sorts of evidence he could use to frame the innocent party. As seen in the Lydia Fairchild chimera case, DNA is seen by some as “100 percent foolproof”9 even though it can only tell us the probability that the DNA belongs to a certain person rather than someone else.10 Sometimes it is not definitive like in rare cases of chimerism and also in multiples, for example twins and triplets. It is important that people, especially people with legal authority like judges, remember that DNA is not necessarily perfect and to consider all possibilities and evidence before coming to a conclusion about a case.