Court Observation Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Court Observation - Essay ExampleIn the year 1978, five boys were reported missing and were presumed dead. The suspects that were captured at the time, lee side Evans and his cousin, Philander Hampton could not be held overdue to the absence of credible evidence. However, as time went by, the court found something to link leeward with the murders of the five teens. The bang 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 humans was very interested in the closure of the case. To this day, the bodies of the teens lease not been recovered. Families of the deceased are appealing to the accuse 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 light-emitting diode the teens into a vacant house, put them in a clo nock, poured gasoline and lit it. They then l eft. It is believed that the teens were forced to the abandoned house at gun caput (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 conscience-smitten of the five counts of murder. This is because he had pleaded iniquitous 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 assure. Lee Evans still has not pleaded guilty to these charges (Henry, p. 23). There was a plea made by Lees defence for a mistrial exactly 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 note of what happened. Since the fire destroyed the credible evidence, the prosecutors have nothing else to go by. Lees 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, contains 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 only when later on, he decided to involve a public defender. The credibility of the key witness was as well as questioned. This was because of his past criminal record. He had been arrested on several occasions and charged with drug possession. He was excessively 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