Memphis Criminal Justice Against Three Boys - Essay Example

Write the paper from an investigation perspective of a prosecutor. You have been approached to prepare for the preliminary hearing regarding the validity of the probable cause used to support the warrant of arrest for EITHER Damien Echols OR Jessie Misskelley (PICK ONE). The prosecution has enough evidence to prove the existence of probable cause to support the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Jessie Misskelley. Jessie Misskelley made an extrajudicial confession to the police regarding his knowledge and participation to the commission of the crime. He provided details and other pieces of information that were already known to the police but not to the general public. An example of this information is the fact of sexual mutilation of one of the kids. Misskelley was able to point to the police the boy who was castrated which was not yet publicly known at the time the confession was made. Despite the few inconsistencies in his confession, any prudent person would believe that the only way Misskelley would come to know of those facts is for him to be present when the crime was being committed. There is probable cause to have him arrested and stand trial in order to determine whether or not he is guilty of the crime. Moreover, when he admitted that he chased after one of the boys who escaped and returned him to the hands of Damien Echols, he became an accomplice to the crime. As such, there is a probable cause to arrest and put him under police custody until the court has ruled on his guilt or innocence as an accomplice, at the very least. 2) Explain a clear understanding of probable cause as it relates to the arrest of the suspect.  There exists a probable cause to effect an arrest of the accused if “the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.” The police officer applies for a warrant of arrest and proves therein the existence of probable cause. If the court is convinced, a warrant of arrest is issued. This is a constitutional right of the accused which mandates that “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (4th amendment). In cases of warrantless arrests, the arresting officer must prove the existence of probable cause within 48 hours. The state and the defense then go on a preliminary hearing to determine the existence of probable cause. At the hearing, the state presents factual evidence which include testimony from the victim, his witnesses or experts in the field relevant to the crime. It may also be proved using available circumstantial evidence that may indicate, albeit indirectly, that a crime was committed by the accused. Finally, mere suspicions or hunches are not acceptable grounds for establishing the existence of probable cause. However, if such suspicion is anchored on the observations of certain facts and circumstances, then such observations, not the suspicion, can be admitted to establish the existence of probable cause. 3) Explain how probable cause differs from the concept "beyond a reasonable doubt". The most obvious distinction between “probable cause” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” is the fact that the former is the requirement for the issuance of a warrant of arrest and/or search as well as for the filing of “Information” against the accused while the latter is the sole standard followed by the courts in judging the accused guilty of the crime for which he stands trial. On the one hand, probable cause refers to the prudent deduction of available facts and circumstances that a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof. The police officer or the prosecutor merely needs to investigate whether or not all elements of the crime is present and whether or not there is enough evidence that points to the accused as the probable perpetrator. If there is a finding of probable cause, a warrant of arrest may issue and the information is filed in court. During trial, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If he is successful, the accused is convicted; if not, the accused is acquitted. On the other hand, the phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” refers to the standard of proof which the prosecutor must comply with to convict the accused. If there exists just an iota of reasonable doubt that the accused is innocent means that the court has the legal obligation to declare an acquittal and free the accused. As William Blackstone succinctly puts it, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” 4) Provide specific details regarding what probable cause the police uncovered which allowed them to arrest the suspect. The finding of probable cause against Jessie Misskelley was anchored on the extrajudicial confession he made in the presence of Det. Bryn Ridge and Insp. Gary Gitchell of the West Memphis Police Department. The information that Misskelley provided in his testimony, that Damien Echols killed the boys, were later corroborated by other evidence when the police found several circumstantial evidence that did implicate Echols to the crime. These circumstances include Misskelley’s declaration that evidence to the crime can be found in their homes. True enough, a search of the homes on the basis of a duly issued search warrant yielded a number of physical evidence one of which is the knife that was found in a lake behind the home of Baldwin’s parents. Based on the size and patterns of the wounds, it could be the same knife that was used to cut and kill the victims. Moreover, a search of Echol’s room yielded several items that are linked with Satanism and satanic rituals. When examined in the light of an expert testimony that the manner of killing the victims was consistent with a satanic ritual killing, then the physical evidence seized from Echol’s house corroborated Misskelley’s testimony implicating Echols as the perpetrator of the most heinous crime. The circumstantial and corroborative evidence above lends a degree of credence to the previous confession of Misskelley which implicated himself as an accomplice. There was a valid finding of probable cause against Jessie Misskelley. 5) As the prosecutor decide if the evidence is sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt  Based on the records at hand, there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The State’s case shall rest on the theory of satanic ritual killing. The three little boys were taken and killed as human sacrifice by the accused who have been involved with the practice of Satanism and worship of the devil. The theory can be proved first by the confession of an eye witness, Jessie Misskelley, that he and his friends, Echols and Baldwin, are into the practice of Satanism and that he personally saw the ritual being done by his friends. Misskelley’s allegation of satanic ritual killing is substantiated by the testimony of experts that the wounds and injuries sustained by the victims are consistent with such devilish practices. Moreover, the parents of Echols testified that their son is indeed deeply involved in the occult practices. Their testimony, coupled with various objects seized from Echol’s room and his previous police and medical records strengthens this theory. In order to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable, there is a need to overcome the exculpatory evidence of the defense. First, Christopher Byers’ possession of a blood-stained knife and his inconsistent explanation about the blood does not help to prove the innocence of the accused. Second, the recanted statements of drug users who left the place after the murders failed in comparison to the vivid eye witness confession made by Jessie Misskelley. Third, the fact that the boots seized from the accused did not match with the boot marks on the crime scene does not necessarily mean that the accused were not there when the crime happened. Finally, the loss of the blood scrapings was a drawback but it was not enough to warrant the acquittal of the accused. 6) Provide specific details regarding the evidence strengths and weaknesses  The prosecution’s case rests heavily on the confession of Jessie Misskelley. It was the core and the starting point of investigations that ensued thereafter. No person in his right mind would come forward and admit to the commission of a heinous crime which carries capital punishment, if he is innocent. Misskeley was also able to provide some crucial information that led to the apprehension of the other accused as well as to the search and seizure of material evidence to the crime. The testimony was strengthened further by other direct evidence pointing to Echols and Baldwin as the principal perpetrators of the crime. First is the testimony of two witnesses who overheard Echols admit to the killing. They were deemed credible by the police because they were disinterested parties and what they heard was a casual remark made by Echols in a ballgame. The second direct evidence is the testimony of Baldwin’s cellmate who claimed that Baldwin admitted to him that he killed the three boys. The evidence’s weakness lies on the way which police gathered and treated some evidence to the crime. An example would be the police officer’s failure to personally examine the bathroom and take blood samples from the bleeding man whom the restaurant manager had reported. It could have been a crucial piece of evidence if it matches with any of the accused. The police also committed several other lapses which contributed to the weakening of the case, like its failure to polygraph the family of the victims and its failure to prevent the leaking of information to the media which made identifying witnesses’ personal knowledge from hearsay difficult. 7) Decide whether to proceed or not with the trail and defend that decision. I would definitely proceed with the trial. There are a lot of issues that can only be brought to light in a full-blown trial. On the part of the prosecution, there is a finding of probable cause that the accused did commit the crime. Records also show direct evidence that points to the accused coupled with substantive and loads of corroborative evidence. The prosecution’s evidence may have some loopholes in it, thanks to the lousy police handling of the case, but it could stand scrutiny both by the defense and by the court. From the perspective of the defense, if they are indeed innocent of the crime, then a full-blown trial will actually help them clean their names. Misskelley have already made a confession and implicated his friends. If the case is dropped on the ground of insufficient evidence to prove their guilt, there would still be that cloud of doubt above their heads. People will forever suspect that they were responsible for the crimes. On the other hand, if they go into trial and were exculpated from the crime, then they walk out with a clean slate. A conviction is had only when the prosecution has proven their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To be able to do that, there must be a trial first based on the finding of probable cause that the accused could be the persons who committed the crime. A trial may be long and dragged out but it is the only way to thresh through a myriad of physical and testimonial evidence. A trial is the only way to settle the doubt that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Read More