Murray V Shirley Jackson Cyberbullying

Medications are normally used to treat people that are ill, but a St. Louis mother had a much more devious reason to use it.

However, a ruling was made that forbade certain information to be publicized until after sentencing. After the sentence was passed down, a video of Jodi Arias’ strange behavior in the interrogation room was released to the public. The video had never been shown to the jury. In the video, Arias was reported to be “singing, laughing, talking to herself, and doing a twenty-second headstand.” She spoke to herself about inconsequential things, like lamenting her lack of makeup during the interrogation. A person who regrets something they’ve done, who is truly reticent of a mistake, should not giggle and be so flippant. (Pow) If a person is claiming self-defense, she should not lie and repeatedly change stories. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a fitting and accurate diagnosis, but it does not diminish the horror of the crime she committed. She changed her plea from guilty to not guilty, and then explained it was self-defense, and then again elaborated that it was a case of home invasion.(Pow) Nevertheless, throughout it all, Arias was only able to recall minimal details from the event. Sources claim she suffered from the diagnosis post-traumatic stress disorder, but that would not make light of the state of affairs. (Pow) The presiding judge stated, “The crime was especially cruel. It involved substantial planning and preparation…The defendant destroyed evidence… and went to great lengths to conceal her involvement.” (Kiefer) Ms. Arias tried to cover up her crime, but not because she knew what she did was

Is Jay credible? I don’t think so, based on the Serial episodes watched in class. Jay has told police and the jury that he lied in order to avoid criminal punishment. For example, in one of Jay’s testimony with the police, he gave an entirely different story than his initial two statements. When the police questioned why he hadn’t told the truth before, he confessed that he lied on the previous testimonies to cover the fact that he bought and sold marijuana. Furthermore, Jay’s testimonies were inconsistent with his prior statements. The prosecutor argues that Jay has always been consistent on the main points with police and some people he has told. There are many inconsistencies with multiple versions for each point. For instance, when asked

Parents. Everyone has them, and everyone either loves them or hates them. They give their children a house to live in, provide food and water, raise and teach them valuable lessons. But do they know what's best for them? Parents don't know the answer to everything whether they have been in the situation before or not. Shakespeare shows that in the different situations their parents were put in, they either did or they didn't know what to do. Romeo’s parents know what to do when he is sad and even when he almost gets killed for avenging Mercutio. Juliet’s parents don’t know what to do when they forced her to make the choice to marry Paris and when they didn't let her have her own opinion. In some situations, parents don't know what to do for

The defense attorneys used photographs of swelling and bruising on Butler’s face and back to corroborate his testimony. Glover, who was not investigating the case, was asked to assist in the interrogation because Butler was apparently ready to confession. During the course of the twelve-hour investigation Glover struck Butler multiple times, placed his hand on his gun, called him the ‘N’ word. These events took place in an interrogation room and in an isolated spot in the woods. This tactic is known as maximization. Brenton Butler was convinced that the more he denied, the harsher the consequences would be. During his testimony, Butler claimed that Glover held his hand on his gun and said that he would hit him every ten seconds that he didn’t confess. This led to a compliant false confession. Brenton knew very well what he was doing, but he felt that he needed to falsely confess to get himself out of the interrogation room. Thanks to scientific advances, we are now able to analyze DNA taken from crime scenes. This is significant because it enabled the wrongfully accused to prove that they did not commit the crime for which they falsely confessed. In 2004, Drizin and Leo studied 125 of these cases to determine the causes. Physical and psychological coercion have been found to induce false confessions, especially in children. Brenton Butler was 15 years old when he went into that

Although many may argue that the accusations presented by the plaintiffs seemed quite plausible, further investigation proved many such claims to be false. For example, although Price and Bates accused the young African-American men of raping them on the freight train, “the Scottsboro doctor who examined the girls less than two hours after the alleged rapes […] was able to show on cross examination that the girls were both calm, composed, and free of bleeding and vaginal damage” (Linder). The fact that a certified doctor was able to prove that the young women were virtually unhurt after the supposed rapes shows that the girls were lying to the court. Although their claims made sense to the prejudiced judicial system, Price and Bates were simply using their positions in society as young white women to gain unwarranted sympathy from the all-white jury. Because scientific evidence was able to contradict the prosecution’s allegations, it was evident that false accusations were being made by the plaintiffs. Additionally, the young black men were accused of being armed with pistols and knives but one member of the group that searched the defendants testified that he only found one knife, which, after questioning the boy, was revealed to be the property of Victoria Price (Kindig). Price and Bates were obviously hyperbolizing their statements to exhibit the men in a more negative light and gain further support of the opinionated jury. The plaintiffs of the Scottsboro trials provided many false charges against the boys in an attempt to provoke persecution in a classic witch hunt-style

Judge Taylor, in To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, is a confusing character that seems to have his own limits. With his heals on his desk he stays so quiet, people think he fell asleep. He will, at times, show a little kindness, but he will also blow up if anyone says something out of turn. He will always stay fair, never breaking the rules in court. Judge Taylor, an unusual character, fakes many people into believing he is laid back, he runs his court fairly, and also kind at some moments and rude at other moments.

The setting in every book is crucial because it is what gives the book a more personal feel for the reader. “A Rage in Harlem” by Himes is an excellent example of how prominent a descriptive settings are to the visualization of the reader. The setting in each book moves around to establish the plot of the novel. In “A Rage in Harlem”, it explains each lace that the character is in very well and helps with the movement of the book. The three best places in the novel “A Rage in Harlem” to show the movement of the plot are Jackson’s apartment, Goldie’s ‘office’, and the police station. I feel that these places are very significant settings in the novel because these places reoccur a few times and talked about in the book with a great deal of detail. Jackson’s apartment on page six it says, “The window looked out on 142nd Street. Snow was

The Atlanta Falcons, Alabama Crimson Tide, Cleveland Indians, and Golden State Warriors, and the United States Government. What do they all have in common? Over the last year, they each managed to blow a big advantage and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory when the stakes were the highest.

On September 11, 2015, Morgan Simpson (heretofore referred to as “Simpson”) and I attended the General District Court of Pitt County. We observed criminal court from 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. in District courtroom 4 with the honorable Judge Dean presiding. We opted to attend this court simply because it worked with our schedules; we were not required to miss classes or work to observe. Upon our arrival to the courthouse, the limited number of parking spaces near the court was all occupied. We were required to park by Town Commons on First Street. That was the first indication that court was going to be packed. The other indicator was the line of individuals waiting to go through the security checkpoint. The line formed at the security scanner was

The reason the Supreme Court appealed this case was because although, the state of Arkansas and other states have used and allowed the testimonies of hypnosis to be admissible in the court, they felt it was an inaccurate way for the defendant to regain memory. Although, the hypnosis did allow Rock to recollect memories, which happened at the death of her husband, the doctor did not lead the interview with direct questions. This then allowed the court to rule the evidence inadmissible because of some of the arbitrary questions asked by Dr.

“May I speak to you?” Marlene said. He agreed to talk to her before going to lunch.

In the case of Jesse Winston vs. the District Attorney, our initial response was one of shock and despair. There was no doubt that Jesse Winston had killed his wife of fifty six years, Annie Winston age seventy nine, but was it murder? There was a great deal of mixed emotion in the room. The entire courtroom was filled with tears, tears of compassion, and tears of pain. Maybe he was taking medication that may have altered his thought process? It was the only rational that we could come to initially; being that he just killed the woman he loved his entire adult life, the one he walked down the alter with, the one he had children with, grandchildren with, and made a life with. Our feelings were of sadness, that he thought this was his only

Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals(1993); This case was not about polygraph, but it did something very important that affected polygraph. It loosened the rules of evidence from the 'general acceptance' Frye ruling in 1923 and stated that 'general acceptance' was NOT a necessary pre-condition to the admissibility of scientific evidence. Instead, the Daubert decision placed the decision making power in the trial judge's hands to "ensure that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand." Daubert also laid out factors, to consider when determining the reliability of expert testimony. Those factors are; “whether the theories and techniques employed by the scientific expert have been tested,

Works so hard as you can see, he’s that man that’s not meant for thee