That was proven, but that does not prove how Caylee died or who put Caylee in that trunk of the car. In order to charge someone with murder, you need to know how they killed a person, or at least be able to answer who, what, when, where why and how. None of those questions were answered. They were not able to prove how Caylee died and that was a big factor! The prosecution failed miserably.
This shows that evidence is an important role in pleading someone guilty. When you convict someone of a crime, make sure you know the evidence and information on the case before sentencing
Also told the judge, the defense 's argument is not newly discovered evidence and the defense knew of this expert during trial. "There 's nothing new for counsel at the time of trial. As far as presentation at trial, the fact that is may have surprised defense counsel, I think they had time prior to trial to get their expert around. I think they were more so upset because we had the better expert," said Rider-Ulacco. Judge Peter Bradstreet denied the defense request for a new trial.
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
This has resulted in an increased demand for prosecution to produce viable and tangible forensic evidence, in order to satisfy the high standard of proof in criminal proceedings. Donald E. Shelton conducted a survey in which he wanted to discover the amount of jurors that expected the prosecution to provide some form of scientific evidence; his findings showed that “46 percent expected to see some kind of scientific evidence in every criminal case. 22 percent expected to see DNA evidence in every criminal case. 36 percent expected to see fingerprint evidence in every criminal case. And 32 percent expected to see ballistic or other firearms laboratory evidence in every criminal case.”
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
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.
In order for the people whose job it is to determine innocence or guilt of a person need more than just expert testimony in the form of a long drawn out explanation. Videos, photographs, or audio recordings are all helpful tools when presenting a case to a jury. In this case with Andrea Yates, there was so much evidence presented that could either have a positive or negative effect on the outcome of the trial. Prosecuting attorneys gave the jurors quite a horrific scene to digest mentally.
The Supreme Court stated the proof could not be used against the person in state courts and that Dollree Mapp could not be convicted. Mapp was released and her case helped to strengthen the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The matter also limited police power. I agree with the final outcome of the case. I would say the Supreme Court made the right decision with the information given.
Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite
When the trial began the accused argued that the 2 year period was sufficient grounds to stay the trial for unreasonable delay,
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.
Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.
This is the reason there is a tighter procedure when storing evidence into Criminal Justice field. The improperly investigated case caused the defendant to feel as if the due process clauses were not executed. After careful research it has been proven that the due process clause is not required determining an innocent or guilty plea which ultimately saves a lot of the court’s time when dealing with a defendant. Lastly, Modern technology has a very important position in society today. Even though the assault kit was used to verify if a victim was raped, a better rape kit was invented to not only verify the victim who was assaulted, but also identify the criminal as well.