Interrogation Assignment This documentary showcases a number of police interrogations that are problematic. The one that I believe is the most egregious is the interrogation of twelve year old Thomas Cogdell in the murder of his little sister, Kaylee. His entire interrogation was one big violation of his constitutional rights, not to mention it verged on psychological torture.
The technology advancements alone have led to several cold cases freeing the wrongfully convicted. What are some of the contributing factors wrongful convictions? There is no way to make a right for the justice system can do for those wrongfully convicted. The loss of time however, there have been some initiatives about compensation for the errors that have happen. The public opinion is so strong when it comes to catching these criminals.
Thesis: Police interrogations can occasionally lead to false confessions due to misclassification, coercion, and contamination. I. The phrase “Innocent until proven guilty” is a popular statement among law enforcement and government employees, but this statement is not always upheld, as various errors, such as misclassification, are a major cause of false confessions. A. Misclassification errors are caused by “investigator bias,” where the investigator goes into the interrogation believing the suspect is guilty. (Keene)
Innocent people have and are still dying today. Deceptive Forensic evidence and a poor legal team are one of the causes of receiving the death penalty. Even though new technologies also help catch criminals, not every crime is technology based. Some trials are based on confessions and testimonies. Others commit perjury, make false accusations, and confessions to protect themselves, or someone else.
Confessions are irresistibly persuasive, and the effects cannot be reversed. Once a confession is given, it corrupts everything else, trumping DNA evidence and even changing witness testimonies. With the prosecutor’s argument of “just because we didn’t get all of them doesn’t mean we didn’t get all of them,” the public was completely convinced that the boys had committed the crime, and once a strong belief that somebody is guilty of a crime is formed, the contradictory details do not matter. The evidence may not fit the accusation, but they do not fundamentally change the belief in their guilt. To ensure that instances of excessive use of force are either discredited or framed within the “one bad apple” theory, the authorities fabricated a story to the press and labeled the boys as the “rotten” individuals who conspired with a sixth person (Beckett and
Syed is spending his fifteen years behind the bars because of Wilds’ testimony; however, throughout the four interviews with the police and at the trial testimony, Wilds provided different statements that made his word a part of invalid evidence of Syed’s guilty. Eyewitness is not the most reliable evidence, for mistakes can be made if a witness misleads the information. In Syed’s case, it is clearly that Wilds was not a reliable person based on his rapidly changing testimony. According to Richard. R Stack, a lawyer and an associate professor at the American University, an eyewitness is only reliable if s/he met all psychological processes, such as acquisition, storage, and retrieval (Stack 88).
Likewise, saying that nobody proved that boy isn’t guilty, so he is guilty, involves error. Fallacy 3: ‘How come you believed her? She’s one of “them” too, isn’t she?’ – This statement by juror 8 involves ‘Attack on the person’. Instead of dealing with the fact that the lady had to say, the juror focused on lady, which can not justified relevant in discussion.
For example, in “The Tell-A-Tale,” the murderer seemed to be mentally disturbed. This also seems to be the case in “The Cask of Amontillado.” It is unlikely that Montresor was mentally unstable. He developed a sophisticated plot to murder his offender. Only an intelligent person, and not a mediocre, can create such a complicated plot.
A careful look at the facts known about King’s assassination would lead one to know that Martin Luther King’s assassination was not a conspiracy, it was the work of the criminal James Earl Ray. Although in the end, some may believe that James Earl Ray is innocent or that one of the conspiracies are true, this overlooks the hard facts brought up in the investigations. The lack of definitive proof or witnesses and the changing statements of the people involved leads to an unsure conclusion. The various conspiracies may hold some relevance, however, each conspiracy shows weak points that removes it from the list of plausible theories.
DANIEL COLON CJA 301 MODULE 2 CASE TRIDENT UNIVERSITY The Miranda rights have been established to provide suspected criminals their rights upon being arrested. By being read these rights, the criminals know what they are entitled to, such as the right to remain silent and to obtaining an attorney (Prentzas, 2005). However, in recent years many terrorist suspects have not been read these rights and it has come to the point that many people, lawmakers and officials believe that they should not be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warnings. As these terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, are no different than any other criminals, and have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments backing them up, they should be guaranteed the rights given by the Miranda warnings.
Why are people always convicted on something they only have circumstantial evidence on? I believe that there is many more ways for a jury to find out if a person is guilty or not and circumstantial evidence is one of the main things they use. Most of the time people get blamed for something they didn’t do and they don’t even have all the evidence to prove that one is guilty. So then they end up going to jail for a crime they did not commit. I don’t believe a person should be convicted of a crime based only on circumstantial evidence because I don’t think it’s fair for the victim.
Justice Fried knew that the mass hysteria of child molestation had in fact affected the case. He also admitted that the children had been asked questions in a way that elicited a certain answer, one that confirmed the biases of all the prosecutors. To make matters worse Justice Fried also knew that the children 's testimonies were unlikely and knew how the defendant 's constitutional right of confronting their accusers had been violated. In the end Justice Fried’s position in the case was predetermined, it seems as if he did not even give the Amiraults a chance to prove their innocence. I think that Justice Fried was very biased and was not impartial at all and he did not adequately do what he was supposed to do in the situation presented to
Nick Gordon 's response to the $40 million lawsuit was packed with claims and full of shocking revelations for the murder of Bobbi Kristina Brown could have been caught on video. Nick Gordon 's legal team is loaded with legal experts, including Jose Baez, who won an acquittal for Casey Anthony. However, the attorneys were surprise when they heard Nick Gordon 's confession. He reportedly admitted that before Kristina died, he was actually spying on her through a surveillance camera. However, it remains unknown where the cameras are at this point in time.
If I was part of the jury I would’ve said that Adnan is not guilty. I say this because there’s simply not enough valid evidence that clearly points to Adnan murdering Hae. I still go with my initial instinct that something is up with Jay. My theory is that Jay was jealous of Adnan and Stephanie’s relationship. Peers described Jay as “He was ‘mean, intimidating, shady’”
The United States criminal justice system is riddled with cases of many varieties. Some have obvious outcomes while others warrant more detailed analysis. However, some cases go beyond the court into other courts, where they are decided, such as Jackson versus Hobbs in 2012. The courts try to lighten the load of cases they have by offering plea bargaining, an agreement among a defendant and a prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty to a charge that is less severe than what he or she is initially charged for in the hopes that clemency will be administered. Sometimes, however, people accused of a crime are completely innocent, and it is not until technology is released, such as DNA testing, decades later that these people are proved to