Category: Criminal Procedure

In this hypothetical situation, the police officer did not contravene the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since Officer Smith was on routine patrol, he did not require probable cause to start engaging the stranger in a conversation (Shwegel, 2007; Roberson, Wallace and Stuckey, 2007). Officer Smith did what is procedural that any police officer can do. He parked his patrol car, headed straight on foot in the direction of Mr. Radley, and inquired from him if he could ask him some questions. Surprisingly, the stranger agrees. If he could have not said yes, then the detective could have been obliged to stop engaging him in any further conversation. However, since he agreed, the action of the officer to talk to him is justifiable. From the scenario, it is evident that the suspect was not detained of his free will and he was at liberty to leave the conversation at any time, which he comfortably did approximately five minutes later.

As Mr. Radley walked into the grocery store, the officer glanced at his pick-up truck. Under the plain view law, this action is justifiable (Bergman and Berman, 2009, p.54). Mr. Radley is not privileged to privacy concerning the passenger compartment of his pick-up track since nothing that is set out in plain view is subject to confidentiality. Furthermore, using a flashlight does not contravene this since the officer only used it to aid his vision. The items that the officer saw sticking out under the front seat of the pick-up made him be suspicious of the vehicle he had never seen before in Hickory Falls. This made him have reasonable suspicion that the stranger in town might have been involved in a criminal act. Burglars usually use the items the officer discovered to break into houses. Furthermore, the items were hidden in the vehicle. Why does a glasscutter or a carpenter hide his tools of trade? A person who does legal business is not ashamed as Mr. Radley was about his equipment. Because of these reasons, the actions of the officer to check if the stranger had any active warrants and to make inquiries with the dispatcher are justified. The officer was simply involved in pro-active policing that has been shown to be able to reduce the crime rate (Paynich and Hill, 2010, p.199).

As the newcomer in town gets into his vehicle and speedily drives off, Officer Smith closely trails him. This action by the officer is also perfectly legal since he was aware that he was about to run him. Therefore, if Mr. Radley could have been implicated in a criminal act, he could have easily handed him over to the authorities. As the chase continued, the officer got vital information from the dispatcher about recent crimes in the neighborhood where a glass cutter had been employed in making way for the criminals. At this moment, the detective has probable cause to order the suspect to halt the pick-up and detain him or in other words make a “Terry Stop” (Lippman, 2010, p.125).

When Mr. Radley came out of the vehicle, he was agitated, swore at the detective and waved his arms around. Therefore, for the protection of the officer and the suspect, the officer carried out a pat-down search, handcuffed him, and advised him against leaving until things were cleared. After a probable cause has been established, it is lawful to prevent a suspect from leaving until all the suspicion has been cleared. However, as much as it is for investigative purposes, the detention should be done within a reasonable amount of time. In this scenario, ten minutes is a reasonable amount of time since it is the duration the homeowner took to get to the scene of the incident. Once the suspect was found innocent, he was released at once. In this hypothetical situation, the actions of Officer Smith were legal.

References

Bergman P., & Berman, S. J. (2009). The criminal law handbook: know your rights, survive the system. Berkeley, Calif. : Nolo Publishing.

Lippman, M. R. (2010). Criminal procedure. Los Angeles: Sage Publication.

Paynich, R., & Hill, B. (2010). Fundamentals of crime mapping. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G. (2007). Procedures in the Justice System (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Schwegel, T. (2007). Probable cause. New York: St. Martin’s Paperbacks.

Criminal procedure is quite a complicated phenomenon in the judicial system, including various nuances. That is why the nationalization of this procedure, or constitutionalization, as called by law professors, was introduced in the last century. It included the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Case’s interpretation for extending the protections of the Bill of the Rights to states. Nationalization implies the creation of a single standard based solely on constitutional rights, which applies to the federal government as well as to the states. Although the nationalization revolutionized the vision of criminal procedure, it remains a controversial issue, so there are both supporters and opponents of this novelty.

On the one hand, nationalization helps better arrange the process and formulate an action plan that can be used anywhere in the country. According to Lippman (2018), “the development of consistent procedures is intended to ensure uniform and fair treatment for individuals wherever they live and whatever their backgrounds” (p. 22). It means criminal defendants are given similar rights by both federal and state governments and can gain the same protections.

All levels of government follow the instruction, which facilitates the process of criminal procedure. On the other hand, some claim that states should be allowed to develop their strategies. It is thought that the procedures appropriate for federal agents investigating fraud, environmental crime, or corporate abuse differ from the daily demands of police officers in a major city or small departments with a tight budget (Lippman, 2018). Thus, it is still unclear whether states should follow the same rules or be entitled to the freedom of making decisions.

It seems that greater flexibility is essential in conducting criminal procedures in various regions of the country. The universal algorithm of this procedure cannot show the same efficiency everywhere because different customs of how to deal with a crime have been developed in each state over the years. Supreme Court judges sitting in Washington, DC, may not possess the necessary experience in local government or law enforcement, so their good intentions may result in “handcuffing” the police and in frustrating police investigations (Lippman, 2018).

Thus, states should have the right to adjust the criminal procedure principles according to their experience in solving criminal issues. What is more, nationalization often leads to leaving victims without protection. In earlier times, judges could informally accommodate victims’ interests on an ad hoc basis, which means taking into account the specifics of a particular case. However, now it became more difficult for judges to make correct policy decisions. Therefore, the rights of victims, considered to be fundamental, should gain more attention, which implies the impossibility of establishing a universal criminal procedure.

Implementing the nationalization of criminal procedure allowed to equalize the rights of criminal defendants in different states and facilitated the process by formulating the sole action plan. Nevertheless, there are many opponents to conducting the same procedure at the federal and state levels. It is vital to remember that the victims’ rights are fundamental, and they should be prioritized. Thus, it seems illogical to regulate all cases with the same rules which are based only on constitutional rights. Therefore, it remains a disputed question of whether states must follow uniform procedures or they may make independent decisions on what practices to use and how to solve every issue.

Reference

Lippman, M. (2018). Criminal Procedure. SAGE Publications.

The case of an attorney representing co-defendants raises a legal and ethical dilemma. An attorney could not represent co-defendants with a potential conflict of interest between the co-defendants (Hall, 2014). Notably, the attorney could not represent a couple in possession of prohibited drugs found in the back seat of their car. In such a case, the attorney could not promote each accused party’s interest because their interests are not identical. For example, one spouse may claim that the substance belongs to the other; thus, the attorney is likely not to diligently and competently represent the claimant.

From an ethical perspective, an attorney should zealously represent all their clients, including those who have admitted guilt to the lawyer. Consistent with NeMoyer et al. (2018) argument, as the client’s advocate, the criminal defense attorney has to protect the defendant because the admission of guilt may not necessarily mean that the client committed the crime. For example, the defendant could admit the offense to save another person. If the result is the release of a violent criminal, the government should be blamed for failing to find the accused guilty. An alternative method would be for the attorney to avoid asking defendants to admit guilt and leave that task to the jury or judge.

I firmly believe that police officers should not arrest every violator they encounter. Law enforcement agents should arrest lawbreakers only when they have reasonable grounds to justify that the suspect has made an attempt or actual crime (Hall, 2014: Myhill, 2019). Arresting people who have committed minor crimes may overstretch the already overcrowded justice system (MacDonald, 2018). Police officers should consider a wide range of factors when making arrests, including the amount of evidence present, the seriousness of the crime, and characteristics specific to individual victims, perpetrators, and situations, such as age, sex, relationship, location, and witnesses present.

References

Hall, D. E. (2015). Criminal law and procedure (7th ed). Delmar Learning.

MacDonald, M. (2018). Overcrowding and its impact on prison conditions and health. International Journal of Prisoner Health.

Myhill, A. (2019). Renegotiating domestic violence: Police attitudes and decisions concerning the arrest. Policing and Society, 29(1), 52-68.

NeMoyer, A., Kelley, S., Zelle, H., & Goldstein, N. E. (2018). Attorney perspectives on juvenile and adult clients’ competence to plead guilty. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(2), 171.

Summary of the Plot

The main plot mostly centers on the life of Ron Williamson, who can be considered the primary suspect in the investigation of the book. Having returned to the small city of his birth after an unsuccessful baseball career, accidentally became involved in a murder case (Grisham, 2007). His life took a sharp turn for the worst in the time prior to the murder of Debra Carter, leading the man to suffer from depression, alcoholism, and being involved with drugs (Grisham, 2007). The circumstances surrounding his life were perfect for the police to put the blame for the recent murder on him, and the evidence found on the scene of the crime scantly connected Williamson with it too. Furthermore, his friend Dennis Fritz was also involved in the story, for much of the same reasons as the other man.

The Murder

In 1982, a murder took place in the small town of Ada, Oklahoma. A woman by the name of Debra (Debbie) Carter was dead in her apartment. It was reported that the woman visited the bar she worked at before that night, leading to the police investigating the potential connections to it. The initial overview of the murder confirmed that the woman died from suffocation, as well as noted instances of her being beaten and raped (Grisham, 2007). The police have to lead the investigation for five years, with no solid evidence to prove their guilt of any individual. Desperation to make an arrest or potentially find the real killer has led the investigators to jump and any potential possibility of an arrest. In particular, the police decided to focus on two men, Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz as the potential suspects (Grisham, 2007). The connection between them and the murdered Carter was flimsy at best and substantiated by a combination of a witness record and his general reputation both held in the community. The initial questioning after the murder also concerned the two men, but no solid physical evidence was found to signify their involvement. Williamson was questioned using two separate polygraph tests, both of which showed no signs of guilt. The main witness of the case was Glen Gore, who repeatedly asserted both men were seen frequenting the bar Carter worked at. Williamson has had a history of drug use and mental health issues, both of which made him a suitable potential candidate for being a murderer. Glen Gore and has stated that Williamson was seen arguing with Carter on the day of her death, leading the police to believe he was the most prominent suspect (Grisham, 2007). The man was also characterized as making the victim uneasy, also by Gore. A need to quickly solve the case after a five-year period and a lack of leads have driven the police to ignore many of the possible factors regarding the murder in the vein of focusing on Williamson and Fritz. Another contribution to the murder conviction Williamson has received was a testimony from a prison whistle-blower connected with the police, who has reported the man confessing to the murder while serving his time for another crime in jail (Grisham, 2007). Terri Holland has been an informant for the police force for a continuous period of time and was a major contributor to both Carter and Haraway cases. The woman has since been found to state false testimonies to the authorities for rewards.

Additional Circumstances

In addition, it can be noted that the occurrence of a similar murder near the period of the investigation may have contributed to the investigation’s haste. Just a few years prior, Donna Denice Haraway was dead after being reported missing and being shot in the head by an unknown assailant. Two men were similarly accused of murder, followed by both of them admitting to having committed the crime (Grisham, 2007). While their testimonies have been vague at best, and have actively contradicted the findings of the police, both men were convicted of murder and put to life imprisonment. The admissions, similarly to the Carter case, were justified by dream testimonies and rushed through the court system.

Investigation and Investigation Conduct

Physical Evidence in the form of hair was also found, thought to have possibly belonged to the killer. Hair samples gathered from the scene of the crime were identified to have belonged to at least one of them, an assertion that held the conviction together (Grisham, 2007). During the process of the investigation, both men were repeatedly questioned and pressured by the police, as a way to ensure a guilty verdict could be made. Williamson has recalled a dream where he had committed murder during the process of being investigated, which was admitted into court as evidence of the crime and possible admission of guilt.

The Convictions

By the end of the long-stretched investigation, Williamson was sentenced to death, while Fritz faced a life prison sentence. The former was put on death row where he remained for 11 years until the sentence was halted by the court. Numerous appeals to court were made during that time by the man, all of which were denied (Grisham, 2007). Only through a number of connected petitions, public unrest, and further investigation from the interested parties, was the truth uncovered. The execution was stopped just 5 days before its scheduled date. A petition for The sentencing largely relied on witness testimonies from Gore and Holland, whose words were unreliable and unsupported by the other findings of the police. Eleven years after the event, the two men have acquitted of their charges thanks to the use of DNA testing, which proved that the hair samples found on the murder scene did not belong to them. The DNA examination of the hair instead implicated the key witness to the case, Glen Gore, who later admitted to the murder and was put in prison for life.

The Evaluation

Police Conduct

The police have appeared to be extremely uncoordinated and incompetent in solving this case, collecting evidence, analyzing it, as well as interacting with the potential people involved in it. Their investigation of the murder scene has to lead to them finding evidence of the rape and murder, but the assumptions of guilt and charges thrown against the potential suspects after the fact we’re not as well-made. From the very beginning, the police were led to assume the involvement of Williamson and Fritz, who were nothing more than acquaintances to Carter, and have not had any sufficient evidence found against them. While releasing them initially, the police had repeatedly pursued them as suspected afterward, lead on by the testimonies of Gore and Holland. Holland was an unreliable source and a person in direct and consistent contact with the police, and a person that could gain significant benefits from rushing a police arrest. Her testimony against Williamson was likely motivated by ideas of personal gain, and should not have been presented as a vital part of the case. Furthermore, the testimony of Glen Gore, a person closely related to the murder investigation ever since its beginning. Glen has provided his version of the events stating that Williamson was seen arguing with the victim on the day of her murder, continuously pushing his persona as the one responsible for the event. He has further implicated Fritz as well, also on a rather weak excuse of the man frequenting the same bar.

Glen Gore as Murder Suspect

Glen Gore has been a person closely associated with the investigation since its beginning, the one mainly responsible for the witness testimonies against the two men. The man has also had a history of violent and criminal behavior, which was overlooked by the investigation. The man’s continued presence and potential involvement in the case were also ignored, as the police were chasing other suspects without properly questioning or investigating the possibility of Gore as a suspect. The hair found on the murder scene had been misanalyzed, being attributed to either Williamson or Fritz, while later testing revealed it to have been Gores. It should be also noted that not enough attention was paid to the scene of the crime. The body was found in a naked state, with ketchup used to write a message on her body. The words are written on Carter’s corpse and walls, and the kitchen table was used to implicate two other men, named Graham and Smith. Both were found to have not been involved in the case, but, notably, had had relations with Glen Gore. The connections between the names written and gore were fully overlooked, and no further decisions to consider Gore as a possible murderer.

Overall, it can be said that the police and the investigators involved in this case have displayed gross incompetence when working, neglecting some parts of the evidence collected and misinterpreting others to push a comfortable agenda. Palm prints collected in connection with the murder were not properly utilized leading to the police have not been able to gather the necessary proof to lead a good investigation. The witnesses in the case were all largely unreliable and either had external motivations for lying to the police or could themselves be involved in the murder. The bar of evidence and testimony admitted to the court in connection with the murder was very low, and every piece of proof connecting Williamson and Fritz to the event was unreliable at best. The police have used recollections of Williamson’s dream as evidence of him committing a murder, which could not have possibly been considered an admission of guilt. The procedures for testing and identifying biological evidence were also used against the two men, with the possibility of hair samples matching presented as valid and crucial pieces of evidence. The erroneous nature of the case was finally resolved 11 years later, with the confession and arrest of Glen Gore, who was found to be the real criminal in the event. The use of DNA recognition was crucial in determining his guilt, as well as the testimonies of the people around him. It is extremely important to uphold the standards of quality in police procedure, as a way to ensure that the events of the Carter murder never take place again.

Reference

Grisham, J. (2007). The innocent man: murder and injustice in a small town. Modan Publishing House.