Mr presiding judge, Mr the U.S. Attorney, in conclusion, I would like to remind you some facts about this case.
To begin with, I would like to show some basic elements: Michael Peterson, my client, is an American novelist accused by the prosecution of murdering his second wife Kathleen Peterson.
Her body was found lying on the floor, at the bottom of her stairs.
My client was near his swimming pool at this moment and immediately called 911 when he saw her body. There was blood everywhere and my client was really stressed, as you can hear in the recording. Her wife was still alive, but unconscious and died a few minutes later.
What I mean is there are elements that can tilt the balance to the detriment of my client. Blood was everywhere,
…show more content…
My client is accused of a crime not because the prosecution had physical evidence but because he was bisexual and he had a different way of life. It is about who he is, not what he does. Therefore, I am asking the jury to not choose the verdict because they disagree with Michael Peterson's way of life. It would be discriminating.
This brings me to another point: How can you explain that the autopsy report of Deborah Radisch was available on the web, before the case started? What were they wanted to prove with this report? Michael Peterson would be a serial killer who killed women every twenty years? Even more, what would be the motive of Peterson in the Ratliff case?
As you know, my client is a writer. He had written a lot of articles in the Durham Herald Sun which besmirches the incompetence of Jim Hardin. As you can see, Jim Hardin is now the prosecutor of this trial. It is now obvious that the judicial bias is not respected. We can’t be both judge and jury.
While I am at it, let me add another elements. A local news paper revealed that Duane Deaver teamleader of the North Carolina Centre of Forsenic had deliberately lied about blood test results in at least thirty trials.
To
-Summary Timothy Mitchell, father of 5 and a residence of Sault Ste Marie who is trying suing the Sault Ste. Marie Police Services Board. His claim is that during an arrest one of the officers, Keating who was detaining him had used unnecessary force. Mitchell had been struck by Keating near his left upper abdomen. During his hims time at the police station Mitchell claimed that Keating said “abuse, provocative and demeaning comments” and that Keating also pushed him from behind while sitting on a bench in a cell and as he left Keating he gave a “rude and abusive gesture to Mitchell”.
Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.
Even when Michael’s new defense team, through the innocence project, found a crime that was eerily similar to the method of murder and subsequent events to the one that Michael was convicted of, the new prosecutor in Williamson County fought hard to keep DNA testing from taking place, even stating that they objected to the testing now because the defense hadn’t requested it before (Morton, 2014). There was further evidence of ineffectiveness in that the coroner who’d changed his estimated time of death between the autopsy and trial, had come under scrutiny for his findings in this case, as well as several others, with claims of gross errors “including one case where he came to the conclusion that a man who’d been stabbed in the back had committed suicide” (Morton, 2014). This was only one of the many injustices that were committed against Michael Morton throughout his trial. In August of 2006, the defense was finally granted permission to perform DNA testing on the items that had been taken from his wife’s body (Morton, 2014). Although this testing did not reveal any information about the guilty party, it did at least give Michael the knowledge that Chris was not sexually violated before or after her death (Morton,
Yesterday, Sloan Jackson, age 18 was put on trial for stealing a shirt from Famous Fashions in Merchandise Mall. He supposedly ran out of the store with a lump (which was the same color as the stolen shirt) in his jacket to go to Record Mart because there was a big sale going on. He then was found sitting next to the yogurt stand and the shirt was found in a trash barrel near the yogurt stand. He then ran away from the security guard but he was in the end caught and brought back to the store to return the shirt. At the trial yesterday the jury came to a verdict of being guilty after talking in the jury room for about 10 minutes.
Scott Peterson was convicted of the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Conner Peterson. He has been on death row for over a decade as he tries to get his conviction appealed. Peterson and his family maintain his innocence, even participating in a docu-series titled, The Murder of Laci Peterson. This has caused quite a stir among viewers who now say they have doubts about his guilt. Could Scott Peterson been wrongfully imprisoned for so long because of circumstances he had no control over?
Once someone steps in the court room to oversee a trial of this caliber (or any caliber) they must not and will not let the media dictate their perspective of events. Scott Peterson’s jury saw the burden of proof provided by the prosecution and were left with no doubt in their minds by their own deductions he was guilty. The Casey Anthony jury on the other hand took all of the evidence into consideration, but they still were not completely convinced she was capable of the charges being filed against her, leaving them no other decision but to provide a not guilty
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 [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Not calling 911 and hiding the body was morally and criminally wrong. The lack of remorse bothered me as an utter disregard for her dead daughter and selfishness unparalleled. I believe that the prosecution’s putting the death
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.
The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt.
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 Murder of the Hollywood Starlet A young hollywood starlet was brutally murdered in 1947 with no killer identified to this day. This is real case that still puzzles investigators today. The woman in question was named Elizabeth Short, but is more widely known as the “Black Dahlia.” She was given this nickname by the press because of the sheer, black clothing she tended to wear (“The Black Dahlia Murder - Read All about it in FBI Records.”).
Compelling Evidence In today’s society, high-tech gadgets and the media have given the impression the essential necessity for forensic evidence in order to convict. Once in a while, cases like the Laci Peterson murder come along with little forensic evidence but a whole lot of circumstantial evidence and motive. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the forensic evidence discovered that led to the conviction and death sentencing of Laci’s husband, Scott Peterson.
1. Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. Jacob Winkleman is a 6-year-old student at Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Parma, Ohio. Jacob was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and is covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq.
His prejudice is clear when he says that “I’ve lived among ‘em all my life. You can’t believe a word they say” when speaking about the boy (16). Juror Ten’s prejudice causes him to disregard all of the facts that are presented to him by Juror Eight that can prove that the accused is not guilty. Juror 10 allows his prejudice to blind him of the truth. That is until he is called out by his fellow jurors.