The Principal Role Players in Criminal Cases - Research Paper Example

Criminal Case Criminal Case A criminal case involves prosecution of a person or organization that is reported to have committed an offense against the state. The principle role players in criminal cases are the State’s attorney, defendant attorney, the chief judge and jury. The attorney’s role is to hand in evidence to the court that proof the defendant’s involvement in the crime beyond any reasonable doubt. The grand jury reviews the evidence presented to determine whether the defendant should stand trial or not. If the evidence presented is sufficient, the court issues a warrant for the arrest of the defendant. Immediately the defendant is arrested, pretrial interviews and investigations are conducted by the prosecution. The defendant is then brought before the jury, where the judge informs him of the charges against him. The judge determines whether the defendant should be held in jail or released on conditions during the first appearance (“Supreme Court of the United States,” 2010). Before the actual trial, the defendant goes into a plea to the charges in a hearing referred to as an arraignment. During the arraignment, if the defendant pleads “guilty” then he awaits to be sentenced, but if he pleads “not guilty” the defendant will stand trial. In the criminal cases, the burden of proof rests on the state. A perfect example of a criminal case is the case of Vincent Cullen v. Scott Lynn Pinholster. In 8th January 1982, Scott Pinholster Brown and Corona were accused of breaking into Kumar’s house in the night and viciously beating and killing two men who interrupted the burglary. The two victims killed were Kumar’s friends who arrived at the site, found out what was happening and threatened to call the police. However, before they could call the police, Pinholster attacked Beckett and Brown attacked Johnson stabbing them on the chest till death. As Corona was driving them away from the site, the two kept boosting how they had killed the victims and instructed corona not to speak about the robbery. At the apartment, they split the proceeds from the robbery and dispersed. Two weeks later, corona reported to the police and became the state’s first witness. Pinholster was arrested and charged with first degree murder. Pinholster refused to be defended and insisted that he would be his own witness. During the time in jail, the state mailed him informing him of the prosecution’s intent of using aggravating evidence against him in the trail (Hall, 1999). During the case, the court appointed Harry and Wilbur Dettmar to protect Pinholster. The trails began on 28th February 1984 where Pinholster defended himself by presenting an alibi defense. In his defense, he admitted breaking into Kumar’s house on 8th January 1982 and stealing marijuana but refused to have killed anyone. He asserted that later in the night Corona got into Kumar’s apartment and stole drugs and was away for three hours. Pinholster also admitted that he was involved in a series of robberies where he claimed to have used guns but not a knife. Despite his efforts to portray himself as a robber and not a murderer, the jury still convicted him of first-degree murder on both accounts (Hall, 1999). Prior to the penalty phase, Pinholsters defense moved to oppose the use of any aggravating evidence by the prosecution before notifying them as per the provision of the cal penal code Ann(west 2008). On April 24 during the hearing, Dettmar contended that due to lack of notice of the evidence, he was not ready to offer anything through mitigation. Three days later the court denied the exclusion evidence after realizing that the prosecution had informed the defendant attorney before deciding to use the evidence. During the trial, the prosecution brought before the court testimonies of eight witnesses against Pinholster and reviews his past hostile and violent conduct. They testified of his involvement in Juvenile gangs, prison disciplinary record, resist of arrest and assault to the police during the arrest. When the defense called Pinholster’s mother to testify, she gave a history of his troubled childhood and teenage years. She told of Pinholster as an incredible gentleman back at home. Though the defense had consulted a psychiatrist six weeks earlier, the jury did not rule out the first degree murder accusation. Later California Supreme Courts confirmed the judgment in the case (Hall, 1999). Pinholster filed the first petition for state habeas in august 1993, on the allegation of ineffective aid of the counsel during the penalty stage of the trial. He argued that the defense had failed to investigate the evidence adequately to aid presentation of mitigation evidence, which included evidence of the existence of mental disorder. He supported his argument on legal, school and medical records. However, the Supreme Court denied him the claim that it lacked merit (“Supreme Court of the United States,” 2010). In 1997, Pinholster added a new allegation claiming that the counsel had not presented adequate materials to the psychiatrist. Dr. stralberg supported pinholster’s allegation that he will have carried out further inquiry if he is presented with the relevant materials. Pinholster filed his second petition in August 1997. In the second petition, pinholster included Dr. Stralbergs statement and requested consideration of the documents presented in his first petition. The Supreme Court of California again failed to offer the petition on the basis that it lacked merit. In the same year, he filed a writ for habeas corpus petition. The District Court reached a declaration that, the Antiterrorism and Valuable Death Penalty Act of 1996 could not apply and, therefore, granted a hearing. To alter the case to his advantage, Pinholster approached two medical experts Dr. Donald Olson and Dr. Sophia vinogradov to diagnose him with organic personality disorder and partial epilepsy. During the hearing, the court considered Pinholster ‘s health status in making its ruling (Hall, 1999). However, with all the additional evidence pinholster was not able to proof that the supreme court of appeal was erroneous in the application of the federal law during the case. As a result the Supreme Court, therefore, with held Pinholster’s petition on the basis that it was without merit. In that condition, the only way in which pinsholster could satisfy the unreasonable application of the federal law was through demonstrating that there was no sensible basis for the decision by the court. After thorough consideration of the conditions surrounding the case, the court concluded that it had effectively applied the law in coming up with its decision. Therefore, since Pinholster had failed to convince the jury of his innocence, he was convicted of the charges. Convicting Pinholster was in accordance to the law because the purpose of regal registration is to assist the defendant to obtain justice. The court ruled that the counsel should be presumed to have offered adequate assistance to the defendant. This case led to some implications in the legal system in that, for any subsequent defendant to overcome the presumption he must demonstrate that the counsel failed to act reasonably considering all the factors relevant to the case. According to Hall (1999), the implication of this case on the regal system was that, in the event of the allegation of inadequate assistance by the counsel, one had to proof prejudice in the case. The defendant was also required to provide reasonable probability that, in the absence of counsel’s mistakes, the results of the case would have been different. In conclusion, it is clear that criminal cases involve a person committing the offense against the state. It is also clear that once an individual has been accused it is the role of the prosecution to prove the involvement of the defendant in the crime. Criminal cases may have implications on the justice system by revealing the need of law adjustment in case the law where the law hinders justice. For example, the case of Cullen v. Pinholster is a clear demonstration of a criminal case with implications on the legal system. References Hall, S. (1999). Policies That Impact the Criminal Justice System. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/list_6593493_policies-impact-criminal-justice-system.html n.a. (2010). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.google.co.ke/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CD4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F10pdf%2F09-1088.pdf&ei=s-vIUMPSOYOnrAfl14HABg&usg=AFQjCNHomVL5zBSGb48MC6k7tBUDlttb8w&bvm=bv.1355272958,d.bmk Read More