The Five Missing Teens in Newark - Essay Example

Court Observation The Court proceedings for the case of the five missing teens in Newark, New Jersey, have been one of the longest ever witnessed. The case has been in court ever since the year 1978. This is the year that five teenage children were reported missing. The children were presumed dead after a while when they did not turn up. The case has been in court for more than thirty years. It is only this year that the case reached its peak (Henry, p. 19). This is with the presentation of evidence that linked the suspect to the murder charges. In the year 1978, five boys were reported missing and were presumed dead. The suspects that were captured at the time, Lee Evans and his cousin, Philander Hampton could not be held due to the absence of credible evidence. However, as time went by, the court found something to link Lee with the murders of the five teens. The issue that arose during the case was the linking of Lee to all the murders (Henry, p. 20). Questions as to why he would do such an act were asked. The public was very interested in the closure of the case. To this day, the bodies of the teens have not been recovered. Families of the deceased are appealing to the accused to disclose the location of the bodies. This is to allow them to be at peace and have the ability to let go of the memory of their lost ones. Facts reveal that Lee Evans and his cousin led the teens into a vacant house, put them in a closet, poured gasoline and lit it. They then left. It is believed that the teens were forced to the abandoned house at gun point (Henry, p. 22). First, three were taken by Lee then two followed later. When asked the reason he was doing this by his cousin, Lee said it was payback since the boys had stolen his marijuana. The case came to a close as the jury found Philander Hampton guilty of the five counts of murder. This is because he had pleaded guilty to the charges. The case had gone cold and had been put under missing persons. A confession from Hampton helped law enforcement agencies to start the case again. This time they had a witness. Lee Evans still has not pleaded guilty to these charges (Henry, p. 23). There was a plea made by Lee’s defence for a mistrial but the judge, Patricia Costello, denied the motion for the mistrial. If the case was considered a mistrial, then the case would have to start all over again. Beside Hampton, Lee Evans is the only other person who truly knows what happened. This means that the prosecution is heavily reliant on his account of what happened. Since the fire destroyed the credible evidence, the prosecutors have nothing else to go by. Lee’s defence asked the witness why he did not stop the accused from doing what he allegedly did. The answer Hampton gave was that he did not know Lee was going to do it (Henry, 25). He is the one who allegedly gave Lee the matches to use to set the place on fire. The prosecution in this case has a hard time since the evidence produced by their only witness is being questioned. With his tenth grade education, Hampton seemed confused with the account of what actually happened. Hampton, in his testimony, claims he fled from the scene of the crime before it was set on fire. He explained to the jurors in the case how the accused, Lee Evans, led the victims into the deserted building and carried out the actions (Millman, p. 15). Lee acted as his own defence at the beginning but later on, he decided to involve a public defender. The credibility of the key witness was also questioned. This was because of his past criminal record. He had been arrested on several occasions and charged with drug possession. He was also charged with shoplifting. The defence thinks that Hampton was coerced into agreeing to testify against his cousin. They also think that if he is the key witness, why did he have to wait this long to decide to testify (Millman, p. 25). As a witness, Hampton had a lot on his plate. Family members claim that they suspected Lee Evans from the start. This is because, at the time of the teens’ disappearance, Lee was a handyman. At times the kids would be seen helping him around and the last time they were seen they were helping him load his truck. There has been the assumption that detectives in the case were using the two against each other. They were offering them deals to see who would give up the other as a strategy to close the case. Families were present at the hearing of the case from all sides. The accused had his support from family members. Families of the victims were also present to see the outcome of the case (Millman, p. 27). The legal process that was clearly observed in this case was the call for a mistrial from the defence. This appeal was requested by Lee’s defence attorney (Porter, p. 14). He felt that the jury did not correctly follow procedure. This call, however, fell on deaf ears. The judge who was presiding over the case, Judge Patricia Costello, dismissed these calls for a mistrial. It is clear that the presiding judge and the jurors have a lot to consider putting this case to rest. The defence for the accused also believed that the law enforcers responsible for bringing in the witness interfered with the case. This means that they forced the witness to give or provide them with false information in the court of law (Porter, p. 17). They are believed to have given the witness a deal to shed bad light on the accused. In accordance to a law that was in place at the time of the murders there is a clause. It indicates that the willing party in an investigation to provide information that may aid in the investigation, they can get twenty percent of their sentence knocked off. Another process that was clearly observed was the trial by jury. This is evident in the fact that the defence was requesting for a mistrial. The jury is selected for a particular case. They are supposed to pass judgement according to the evidence presented and not personal feelings. Submission is what the accused is supposed to admit to the judge (Porter, p. 20). It is a statement that is produced for the judge by the defendant to ensure that they understand what charges are being laid on them. This statement also shows whether the defendant agrees with the charges. The involvement of the media into a case should remain the same. The press would help give the public a wider view of how to relate to such case. Some of the things that should change include the involvement of family members in the court proceedings. Even though they deserve a chance to hear what the accused have to say, the emotion that they bring into the courtroom could be too much (Star-Ledger Staff, p. 1). In conclusion, it is important to note the proceedings of such a case could elicit lots of reaction. It is only right that the judge, jury and all those involved in the case be just and fair. This is to avoid situations that make their judgement be questioned once they have convicted the accused (Star-Ledger Staff, p. 1). They should base their judgement on evidence presented and not their emotions. This could ensure that every party is justified and that steps are made to bring the case to rest. Works cited Henry, S. Lee Evans, Newark Man, Killed 5 NJ Teens In 1978. New York: Free Press, 2011. Print. Millman, J. 2 Charged With Murder of Five Newark Boys Missing Since '78. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 2010. Print. Porter, D. Lee Evans Charged With Burning Five Missing Teens To Death In 1978. Chicago: Bantam Press, 2010. Print. Star-Ledger Staff. Timeline of investigation into 1978 disappearance of five Newark teens. Newark: New Jersey Press, 2010. Print. Star-Ledger Staff. Without bodies of five missing Newark teens, prosecutors face challenges. Newark: New Jersey Press, 2010. Print. Read More