James Richardson's Innocence

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,

The jury has never reviewed this exculpatory evidence, that proves Benson Simmons innocence of the aggravated rape charge. Finally, Simmons was granted with his first parole hearing in twenty years. However, during the parole hearing

All of his appeals got denied. Then, his post-conviction lawyers Robert Henak and Stephen Glenn had the DNA evidence tested in 1995. The court shot down the evidence stating that the 3rd set of alleles from the test could have belonged to anyone and didn’t prove Steven’s innocence. Eventually, the Wisconsin Innocence Project got the rape kit tested again. The lab found a rooted pubic hair and tested it.

The prosecution presented evidence from Glenn Gore, the main

Megan Reese Argumentation and Persuasion Paper III Why O.J Got Away with Murder: A Murray Ogborn Application Physical evidence, DNA proof, and a violent past history could seal the fate of OJ Simpson in the controversial murder trial of his wife Nicole Brown. Although so much damming evidence pointed that he was the murderer, on October 3rd 1995 a jury reached the verdict of not guilty. How does a murderer get away with murder when there is a vast amount of scientific evidence and testimonials presented to a jury? Murray Ogborn, a redound trial lawyer, would argue that the District Attorney (D.A) did not tell the right story, and thus the jury could not remember or relate to all the factual evidence presented during the 9

Without facts and evidence to prove someone's guilt it's impossible to convict them of the

The O.J. Simpson case, one of the most influential cases in legal history, introduced the world to reality television, heightened the demand for celebrity gossip, and paved the way for the current twenty four hour news system. However, the trial is just as controversial as it is influential leading the jury’s verdict to be questioned at every opportunity. The erroneous handling of evidence, the biases of not only the police but the jury, and favorable circumstances on O.J. Simpson’s part led to a not guilty verdict. The Jury in the O.J. Simpson trial had no choice but to declare Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Some people believe the jury made the wrong choice and that there was sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict.

Innocence: the lack of experience with the world and with the bad things that happen in life. In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, innocence is something that has to be lost in order to make room for compassion to grow. To Kill a Mockingbird follows a young girl, Scout, as she faces many life experiences that help shape her childhood. In the beginning of the novel, Scout continuously bothered a man named Arthur “Boo” Radley. Boo Radley never came out of his house, or had any social interaction with other members of the community.

Innocence can sometimes hurt a person, when people are innocent they sometimes get blamed for what they didn’t do. This has happened to many people over the years and sometimes the guilty in the situation never get caught. Innocence makes a person pure

However, it wasn’t until 1995 when DNA showed that Ronald Cotton was innocent. According to the Innocence Project, Ronald Cotton spent 10 years in prison before being exonerated. The identification of criminals correctly and consistently

The Ethics of Fred Zain Fred Zain was a forensic lab technician that worked for both the states of West Virginia and Texas. A man who did a job he was severely under qualified for, for ten years, and who was thought to be a start asset in his line of work. Fred Zain had testified in countless cases, presenting himself well and appeared to know his trade so well that no one in the courtroom questioned the lab results obtained by Zain. It is very well known that his actions in court are viewed as unethical by today’s standards. In his time of employment, Fred Zain acquired a lengthy rap sheet of tampering and falsifying evidence, false convictions.

The Mockingbird Spirit of Innocence How do you define innocence? Is there someone out in the world who is purely innocent? To understand innocence you should look at what a mockingbird does, because all they do is sing. In Harper Lee’s classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus and Miss Maudie teach Scout and Jem that it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.

Innocence is a word used to describe someone 's purity. Children are prime examples of innocence, as they don’t have judgments and don’t understand mature topics. In the novel, To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the reader can interpret innocence as the growing up of the children. Specifically, Jem Finch showed a loss of innocence as he grew up. He showed his loss of innocence by not playing games, his more mature use of words and body language, and his different view of the world around him.

After someone commits a crime, multitudes of people show up to the crime scene. The Police, Detectives, Marshalls, sometimes even the Fire Department and Ambulances depending on the crime. There are many forms of evidence presented in a court of law, but one type of evidence rises above the rest. Forensic Evidence, as stated in “Forensic Science: Evidence, Clues, and Investigation” by Andrea Campbell is the best evidence to present in trial. First to know which evidence is superior, one must know what all types of evidence are.

“Evidence is information that people base decisions on. In a legal sense, evidence is the information Presented in court during a trial that enables a judge and jury to decide a particular case” (Garland, 1979, p. 475). Evidence is the key to solving any criminal case. Some evidence is easier to collect than others, but there are trained professionals who know what to look for and where to find it. Anything that is used in the commission a crime can be used as evidence.