May it please the court. This is my co-counsel Jason Edwards, and I am Alex Harb. We have proved that there is beyond a reasonable probability the outcome of the Defendant’s 1999 trial would have been different but for counsel’s errors. We as the defense have had the burden of proof placed upon us, and we have met the burden of proof. The burden of proof demands that we give light to the facts, and show that beyond a reasonable doubt, that, but for the previous counsel’s errors, the defendant would have been found “not guilty”. The defense has presented our witnesses that have given accounts of the whole situation. Through these witnesses, we have shown that the counsellor did not act appropriately, given the evidence possessed at the time, …show more content…
Avery testified that he was unable to meet the marks, except for one of ten times, and all of which he went 5 miles over the speed limit, and the traffic lights due to a storm had all been “flashing yellow” when he attempted the one successful time. If the counsellor had been competent, she would have performed this same test and shown her results to the court, but failed to do so. He also testified to the fact that Morgan gave one testimony to the detectives (he knew the story given to the detectives through the original trial transcripts), and a different story to him. When confronted Morgan confessed he was lying to cover for his sister, who was in the drug business so that the police wouldn’t bring dogs to his house. Avery also testified to the fact that, through reading the trial transcripts, that the counsel didn’t ask any questions of the prosecution’s witness pertaining to the cell phone data, she also didn’t hire her own alternate expert to the prosecution’s to testify in court. Nor did she push Morgan Reynolds to find out that he
Mr. Mack, was always a friend to Mr. Wallace and his mother. Ladies and Gentleman, please remember that the state must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client killed his friend. The Prosecution evidence will have no connection to my clients. In fact the evidence will show that some of the state’s own witnesses are better suspects. The evidence I will present and the witnesses proves that Mr. David Mack was not the one that committed the crime , and was not involved in the murder of his friend, Mr. Wallace.
A decision held that under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant’s counsel had not met the standards of reasonable competence required of a defense. Even if a defendant and their family suggested that no mitigating evidence was available, it is required to use reasonable effort in obtaining and reviewing materials that the counsel expects prosecution to use as evidence during sentencing. The reasoning behind this decision argued that Rompella’s trial counsel did not make sensible efforts to examine the files on Rompilla’s prior convictions for rape and assault. The Court stated that the counsel should have known prosecution would present those files to the jury during sentencing, and that the information on Rompilla’s prior conviction would have found mitigating evidence about his mental health, childhood, and alcoholism that could have been used for a proper
He also spoke on the phone with respondent’s wife and mother. He attempted once, unsuccessfully to meet with them; however, he did not follow up a second time. Additionally, the counsel did not seek out additional character witnesses for respondent. The counsel’s conversations with his client led him to believe he did not need to request a psychiatric examination because he did not believe the respondent had psychological problems. In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes.
Such facts and events were produced from interviews outside of the trial, unsworn statements – hearsay. The case could not be decided solely on these facts that were not sworn or first-handedly heard. Lavallee was a very important source of Shane’s information and her failure to testify weakened the credibility of his testimony. The Abbey (R. v. Abbey, 1982) decision offers the appellant to solely allow the expert witness psychiatrist to give his testimony, with little to no weight being held on the facts, or for the appellant themselves to take the stand and confirm the liability of facts in the expert witness’ testimony to ensure greater weight is given to such facts (Ottawa L. Rev., 1985). With Lavallee as one of Shane’s main sources for information, he would have to completely reassess his position in the case that she had been untruthful.
During Clayton 's murder trial, Sy Ray analyzed cell phone and GPS data between Michael Beard and Clayton. The defense claims they have an expert that found Ray 's data is false. The defense also says they were not given enough time to look over the evidence. "It took the efforts of Dr. Javonavic, who spent the past couple of months reviewing the underlying data and analyzing it and coming to the very clear conclusion that Sy Ray is making up stuff," said Schlather. Special Assistant District Attorney Susan Rider-Ulacco says all of the data Ray analyzed was evidence given to defense.
Finally, Wayne Williams took the stand and testified, which resulted in very unfavorable attention from the jury (The Atlanta, n.d.). His angry and combative demeanor on the witness stand left jury members with little sympathy (The Atlanta, n.d.). It only took the jury approximately ten hours to deliberate and reach a guilty verdict, however, if the fiber evidence was not presented I do not believe the deliberation would have been so quick and most likely would have resulted in a not guilty
All the jurors except Juror 3 had been convinced he was no longer guilty, even though the evidence displays it as such. After much debate juror number three says,”All right. ‘Not guilty’ ”(72). All the testimonies and evidence given by the court had been proven wrong by the jury. This shows major flaws in the justice system and it shows how reasonable doubt is found.
In life some feel the need to prove something to others. That they are better, stronger, or even more intelligent. Whatever the case may be people will go through extreme measures to prove themselves. But who do we really need to prove anything to? Is it our parents?
However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,
In June 21, 1973, Miller was convicted on the ground of advertising the sale of what was considered by the court as adult material. He was found guilty as he broke the California Statute. The California Statute forbids citizens from spreading what is considered offensive in societal standards. The question that was being asked was that if the action of Miller was Constitution thus is protected under the law. However, he lost the case due to a vote of 5 - 4.
The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.
It can be argued that the jury was not a proper representation of his peers. Along with other factual errors surrounding Dixon’s false conviction,
The U.S. Constitution is a Living Document Since society has changed dramatically between the eighteenth and twenty first century, the U.S Constitution should be considered as a living document because it is not applicable in today's society and therefore in need of some changes in order to fit into today’s society. When our founding fathers wrote the constitution they did not have in mind all the technological advancements the U.S. will one day have. Such as the internet, television, radio, and so on. Other’s will say that if the constitution was considered a living document then judges will take advantage and manipulate the constitution to their benefit, but they don’t realize that people already manipulate the constitution. There were laws that contradicted the constitution like the Judiciary Act of 1789, which contradicts Article III of the Constitution in the Marbury v. Madison case.
It confirms the already assumed. During the court trial, Dr. Jones was asked “From your conversations and examination of Perry Edward Smith, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the offense involved in this action?” (296). The doctor replies with a simple no. I strongly disagree what the doctor decides to reply. He claims he has no opinion because of Perry having no opinion.
During the trial, the doctor who analyzed Perry’s sanity, Dr. Jones, testified his opinion: “‘From your conversations and examination of Perry Edward Smith, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the offense involved in this action?’... Answer yes or no, do you have an opinion?’ ‘No’” (Capote 296). He then follows this up with a lengthy and detailed description of how the Doctor would have defended his response had he been allowed by the prosecution to elaborate.