Andrew Davis September 27, 2016 Forensics Mr. Malgeri Ronald Cotton Case Ronald Cotton was sentenced to jail in 1995, after serving ten years for a crime he didn’t even commit. Eye witnesses are considered to be the best form of evidence in an unsolved case. Mr. Cotton was convicted primarily by an eyewitness named Jennifer Thomson-Cannino, who was sure she identified the right male. Years go by and the case was re-ruled and the jury ruled Jennifer 's description as a misidentification. The way the human brain works is marvelous, but often people alter the reality of a situation making false accusations and statements.
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia  WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
No one exceeds the law so much that they are exempt from punishment for committing a crime. The law and justice systems are here to keep us safe and someone could use their “mental illness” to escape incarceration and put others in danger. It would be unwise to let a gang leader go free from a life sentence in prison, because he was ruled insane, and he could still endanger someone. The Insanity Defense is rarely used in the United States and it would be wise to get rid of it altogether so, it can’t be misused by criminals looking for a way to escape imprisonment. The Insanity Defense should not be able to excuse someone for fair punishment for their
The term “Double jeopardy” indicates a person put through a second trial for an offense previously convicted or prosecuted for. The rule against double jeopardy is to prohibit double trial and double conviction and originally flows from the maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro uno et eadem causa”. It is a procedural safeguard, which bars a second trial after the accused is acquitted or convicted in a full-fledged trial by a court of competent jurisdiction . It consists of two doctrines, namely autrefois acquit and autrefois convict , which aim at protecting criminal defendants from the tedium and trauma of re-litigation . History: The principle against “double jeopardy” arose in the 12th century from the controversy between Henry II and Archbishop
Since the earliest civilizations, people have been executed for an assortment of crimes. The Babylonians wrote the first ever death penalty laws over 3,700 years ago, and to this day several countries such as China and the United States continue to enforce capital punishment against those proven guilty of murder, treason, espionage and other crimes. Despite its extensive history, the implementation of the death penalty in modern societies raises an underlying question: Is the execution of criminals truly justifiable? Proponents of capital punishment claim that it dissuades criminals from committing extreme crimes. Potential murderers will be much less inclined to kill for fear of being executed, while criminals with no intent to kill would
As stated in the Marshall Inquiry there is a list of findings that the commissioners developed that proved that Marshall was wrongfully convicted. “Marshall was Native which was a factor in his wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Marshall did tell the truth about the events when first interviewed by the police about the stabbing but later in the trial being accused of perjury when he made his testimony. Immediate police response and the investigation done by MacIntyre were inadequate, incompetent, and unprofessional. MacIntyre without any evidence made Marshall the main suspect and accepted only evidence that supported that theory.
Often criminal confessions obtained through the use of physical force are considered coerced, and in most cases, they cannot be used against the accused in a court of law. Scientists believe that police coercion may have an even more powerful impact and influence on venerable people such as juveniles, the mentally disabled and the mentally ill who admit to the crime to escape the long, harsh interrogation process and procedure. It is worth noting that coercion interrogation is more than the use of physical force to extract information from a person. The process begins by wrongful classification of an innocent individual as guilty which prompts the officers of the law to subject him or her to an accusatorial interrogation. Scientists believe that captives have information in long-term memory that they choose not to share, but the extended application of techniques and methods that induce stress and discomfort will eventually force them to release the information.
Nonetheless, it was later found out that the odontologist (forensic dental specialist) who trained this expert said, ”that there is no way his teeth could have matched marks left on the victim’s body.” Krone maintained his innocence through the trial and thought that the police were out searching for the real killer. “How could you show remorse for a crime you didn’t commit?” said Krone. Four years later, in 1996, with the help of his cousin, Jim Rix, Krone was granted an appeal for a new trial. During the retrial, DNA evidence was discovered on Kim’s body that did not match the victim’s or Krone’s DNA. Krone felt that he’d win this case for sure.
The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Disclaimer By: LawInfo When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties. However, going to trial can be risky because it is impossible to predict what a jury will decide. Therefore, many defendants choose to enter a plea bargain agreement with the prosecution.
Even tho that percentage continues to increase, as a country we are ignoring the fact we could be killing innocent people. Although over the past years the death penalty rate is decreasing the rate of us killing the innocent is still increasing drastically. shouldn't we still be able to punish people for committing extreme crimes? Or heighten taxes to try and help these killers get back into society? Do they deserve a second chance?
Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong In Brandon L. Garrett 's book, Convicting the Innocent: Where Criminal Prosecutions Go Wrong, he makes it very clear how wrongful convictions occur and how these people have spent many years in prison for crimes they never committed. Garrett presents 250 cases of innocent people who were convicted wrongfully because the prosecutors opposed testing the DNA of those convicted. Garrett provided simple statistics such as graphs, percentages, and charts to help the reader understand just how great of an impact this was. These wrongful convictions occur because the criminal justice system had many flaws. It was not only the system that had flaws but also the people on the board.
Time buried in Leakin Park: 7 pm in first interviews and trial testimony, and midnight in a recent interview. All of the listed inconsistencies were made possible with the help from the police, his stories has been altering so that his evidence can corroborate with the cell towers. An article claims that Detective William Ritz was involved in a case where witnesses were encouraged to lie, exculpatory evidence was hidden, and in short, the investigation was corrupt. By doing so, this help Jay and a possible third party involvement. These so-called “evidence” does not arrive to the fact that Adnan killed Hae.