On May 25, 2010 Casey Anthony 's lawyer states to the court and jury that Caylee was unintentionally drowned in the swimming pool of their home , and that Casey and her father had cover it up. The prosecution presented that Casey Anthony did research on chloroform at her home computer but her mother Cindy Anthony 's asserted that it was her that made the searches that implicated her daughter but the records showed that Cindy Anthony was at work when these searches were done. On July 5, the jury found Casey not guilty of first degree murder but she was found guilty on four misdemeanors because she provided false material to a law enforcement officers.
There is a wide range of ways to interpret a case before arriving at the final verdict. In most situations, the best way is to prove the guilt of an accused. The facts presented before the court are vital to prove that a criminal act occurred. A determination should be made in a case to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. At times it is the full discretion of the judge to make a decision, which can deviate from the facts of the case.
The smell in the trunk of the car was tested and contained a large amount of chloroform and key compounds of human decomposition. Evidence is evidence but not all evidence is good, but the “smell of death” that was in the trunk could have been used as good evidence to the case. Why? Because they did not have any other good evidence to prove that she killed her daughter, but that one piece of evidence alone could have convicted her of murdering her daughter.
They argued that all the evidence shown were only circumstantial. The only thing that could connect Scott to the murder of his wife and son was the DNA evidence that was found, was one of Laci’s hair on his boat. They believed that a cult had murdered Laci in some sort of ritual for sacrifice. The defense pointed out that there was no cause of death, no time of death, no murder weapon, no evidence as to how she was killed, no crime scene, no eyewitnesses, no confessions. The defense also pointed out that the defendant had an alibi.
I would understand if it was a case similar to O.J. Simpson, who had all the odds pointing to guilty but found innocent for the heinous murder that he committed; but, this is about a man who was falsely accused from the beginning. When Walter McMillian went to court to be trialed for the first time, there was “reliable evidence” that miraculously proved him guilty without any type of forensics to back it up. I thought that to be found guilty there needs to cold hard evidence to show the judge for a fair trial? And to not side with someone’s opinion because they heard a lie from their
Introduction: The United States Supreme Court cases of Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and United States v. Agurs all deal with the prosecution's obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. These cases establish that prosecutors have a constitutional duty to disclose all evidence favorable to the accused. Failure to disclose this information violates due process and can result in a new trial or acquittal.
The cases of O.J. Simpson and Lizzie Borden are two court cases in American history that are 100 years apart, conversely are very parallel. On both occasions the verdict comes to be the same: not guilty. Circumstantial evidence, which is defined as evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion or fact, was heavily utilized in the process of prosecuting both subjects. Both Orenthal James Simpson and Lizzie Borden should be found guilty of murder due to the continuous number of things that prove their guilt.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
In the article “ The CSI Effect: TV Crime Dramas’ Impact on Real Life Cases” by Madeline Anderson states “ People who regularly view such shows can come away with specific ideas about the reliability and integrity of forensic evidence.” This represents that these shows give the wrong impression to the viewers on forensic evidence. Anderson as well says “ These ideas may lead jurors to except to see more forensic evidence in trials or to weigh such evidence more heavily than they would otherwise.” This shows that everything in the TV shows related the crime dramas, evidence wise there is a limit for how much the evidence can do in the actually case or in the court. Anderson states that “ It can also create false sense of confidence when it comes to understanding such evidence..”
Finally, to significantly reduce eyewitness error, the criminal justice system must view eyewitness evidence as a type of trace evidence.45 Like other types of trace evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA, and firearm patterns, eyewitness evidence has a physiological basis (i.e., biochemical changes in the eyewitness’s brain).46 Consequently, the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, like other types of trace evidence, depends in large part on the use of proper scientific procedures in collecting and preserving it. In short, before admitting eyewitness evidence, a judge should always first determine if valid scientific procedures were followed in producing it. If they were not followed, this failure should generally weigh heavily against admitting
The fiber evidence presented in this case was so overwhelming and simply was the driving force leading to Wayne Williams conviction. I do not believe the prosecution would have been able to obtain the same results without it. The credibility of the FBI forensics investigators and their reputable crime lab made for excellent testimony concerning the fiber evidence at trail, which the defense was simply ill prepared to counter attack its merits (The Atlanta, n.d.). Other evidence was presented in this case, and much of this evidence while certainly impactful on the case and to members of the jury, this evidence alone without the fiber evidence would surely not have held up to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another piece of evidence is a woman who swears to have seen the young man stabbed the father through the last two windows of the train. The evidence says that she was asleep and when she woke up and turned to the window through the last two windows of the train, she was able to see how the young man stabbed his father. The only problem with this argument is that the woman wore bifocal glasses and nobody usually sleeps with glasses so it would be very difficult that without their lenses of such magnitude could see what actually