Capital punishment

Capital Punishment

Kirk Bloodsworth

Who: Kirk Bloodsworth was convicted and sentence to capital punishment, he is a former marine.

What: A 9 year old girl in Maryland was raped and murdered at a park and Kirk's name was reported to the police and they arrested him despite him not matching the description of the man who killed the 9 year old girl. Based on no hard evidence and only the mistaken witnesses, he was sentenced to death for a crime he did not commit. After a second trail he was able to get his punishment reduced to a sentence where he is still living. Later on when Dna testing became more well known he used Dna evidence to prove that he was innocent and he became a free man again in 1993 after being on death row and in prison for 8 years.

When:  August 19th, 1984 - June 28th, 1993.

Where: Maryland state penitentiary.

Why: This case shows that Capital punishment is a system that is clearly broken because any one who is falsely convicted of a crime that is punishable by death could be killed for no reason. Also because the people who are accused falsely are going to be killed they may not be able to prove their innocence in time. Not to mention for all the trouble they put Kirk through they only paid him $300,000 for being imprisoned and on death row for 8 years, which hardly feels like fair compensation.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/opinion/bloodsworth-death-penalty/

6th amendment current event

1.Who - Scott Speers was convicted of a burglary using Nichole Stickle blood testing evidence.

2.What - Scott Speers challenged his conviction because the blood evidence that was was used to convict him was from a lab technician that was never cross examined in court which therefore breaches of his 6th amendment. the supreme court decided that this was not a breach of the constitution.

3.When - December 19th, 2013

4.Where - Indianapolis court

5.Why- I do not think this was a breach of his 6th amendment  because  the lab technian didn't really need to be brought into court to be examined to explain how the blood was his when the test already confirmed that it was his blood. Although you are given the right to know your  accuser  the lab tech was not really an accuser  so much as an expert witness, but because  the blood test was positive it's not really that difficult to understand so there was not really a need to bring in to testify.

Link:
http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-lab-tech-does-not-need-to-testify/PARAMS/article/33084