Murder trial is a legal happening in which the suspected act involving murder of a person at the hand of another person goes through a judicial appraisal. Murder is one of the most dangerous crimes in the whole world. A person who performs this act is known as a murderer. In many countries, an individual involved with the murder case has to undergo a court trial. Some countries sentence the murderers to a long term imprisonment while others are subjected to death penalties. In most murder trial cases, the judge may overrule or sustain the objections made.

An objection refers to a formal complaint brought up in court on trial with an intention of not allowing a witness statement or evidence, which can be in violation of procedural law or evidence rules. When a judge overrules an objection, it means that he has disagreed with the protest and he allows the testimony, question, or evidence. On the other hand, when a judge sustains an objection, it means he has agreed with the protest and disallows the testimony, question or evidence.

Trial Cases of David Daniels

Defendant David Daniels is charged with killing Violet Villeza, and he claims that it was self-defense. He asks for a privilage against self-incrimination, but he does not testify. His witness William Walters states that, in his opinion, the deceased was a brutal person. During the trial, the government asks Bob Burns to testify. Bob Burns says that he had known David Daniels for many years and that he is a cruel person. Bob continues with his testimony and states that on April 12th, 2008, a year before the defendant committed the act, he had seen the defendant hit a mailman who had happened to drop one of Defendants letters.

The defense counsels objection should be overruled in the murder trial case of David Daniels, the defendant charged for killing Violent Villeza. This is because the defendants do not have any evidence to support their claims. William Walters, the defense witness, says that the deceased Villeza was a brutal person. William does not present any incidence to show that the deceased has ever been involved in any violent case. This makes his objection immaterial in the fact that every case should be supported by evidence.

On the other hand, Bob Burns witnesses that he has known David Daniels for a long period. Bob says that for many years David has been a violent man. He testifies that a year before the incident of Violent Villeza;s death on April 12th, 2008 he witnessed David Daniels, the defendant, hit a mailman. This man had dropped one of the defendants letters in a gutter. Bob has evidence that supports his claims that David Daniels is a violent person. His long-time acquaintance with the defendant has helped him to understand David Daniels character. Bob Burns testimonies should be considered and the objections overruled.

In this case, David Daniels is accused of murder and robbery. During the trial, the prosecutor offers to prove that the defendant broke out of jail where he was confined waiting for the trial. He was later arrested and taken back to jail. The defense counsel objection should be overruled. This is because the prosecutor testifies on the incident. He says that later on, after two months, David Daniels was re-arrested. In many cases, breaking out of jail is termed as a robbery case.

As for David Daniels, his act portrays him as the one who committed a robbery crime. It also nullifies the testimony that was presented by William Walters, which stated that the defendant in not a violent man. David Daniels has two cases in question as to why he broke out of jail and the murder of Violet Villeza. The prosecutor should be given a chance to testify about his evidence and ask questions.

This case is a murder trial of David Daniels who is charged with killing Violet Villeza. At the trial, Wendy Williams who is a defense witness gives the following testimony. She says that she has known the defendant for more than three decades. She states that they went to elementary school and high school together. The defendants witness claims that she knows David better that her own mother. Wendy testifies that David Daniels is a non-violent person, and he would not even hurt a fly. In the process, the prosecutor asks a question in the cross-examination of Ms. Williams.

He asks her if she saw David violently beating up a trash collector on May 1st, 1998. The objection should be overruled in order to give the prosecutor a chance to testify. Wendy Williams, a witness of the defendant, claims to have known David Daniels for many decades. Ms. Williams seems not to know David Daniels as she claims herself to have known him. She was not aware of the incident when David assaulted the local trash man as opposed by the prosecutor. Ms. Williams is either trying to cover up the criminal acts of the defendant or she may not be aware of Davids acts. This is because he may have done the acts in her absence.

The murder of Violet Villeza may not have been accidental as the defendant claims. The incident of the defendant breaking out of jail and beating up the trash man portrays him as a violent man, and this means that he has a case to answer. David Daniels appeals in court of his privilege in opposition to self-incrimination, but he refuses to testify. This shows that he is not confident of his testimony and instead Wendy Williams testifies on his behalf. The fact that Williams claims to have known David Daniels for decades does not materialize her testimony that David would not kill a fly. This is because the prosecutor has evidence of the defendant beating up the local trash man on May 1st,1998.

For the prosecutors objection to be beyond reasonable doubts, the court should question the trash collector in order to give a full testimony. In every case, material fact is needed for the testimony. Calling up the trash collector by the court order will challenge Williamss testimony about the innocence of the defendant. The trash collector will also make it clear to the court that the prosecutor is giving a true testimony. It will also help them in deciding the case of David Daniels regarding the murder case. The trash collectors testimony can help Ms. Williams to know the real character of the defendant. It may also help the trash collector to find justice on the suffering caused to him by the defendant beatings.

In this case, David Daniels is charged with bank robbery. The defendant denies committing this crime and claims that he has reasons. Witness Wyatt volunteers to testify in favor of the defendant. He says that David Daniels and Wyatt were playing porker the night when the incident occurred. Later after this testimony the prosecutor carries his own investigations and establishes beyond doubt that David Daniels has bought the testimony from Wyatt for 20,000 dollars. He says that having the jury listen to his testimony was worthless and a waste of time. The prosecutions objection should be sustained.

In this incident of bank robbery, Daniels denies that he has committed robbery. David testifies that they were playing poker at Wyatts house during the robbery process. Afterwards, the prosecutor carries out a voir dire investigation and finds beyond reasonable doubts that David had paid 20,000 dollars to testify in his favor. The prosecutor testimony will bring justice to the bank where the robbery was carried out. The bank may recover the stolen property that they lost during the robbery. David will hence be convicted of the robbery. Bribing is a criminal act along with accepting bribe.

Both David Daniels and Wyatt should face conviction. David should be convicted of buying false evidence when he gives Wyatt the money in order to testify in his favor. Wyatt should also face trial for the acceptance of money in order to present false evidence in the court of law.. The prosecutors testimony will assist the jury in the ruling process, and this will enable them to make a proper judgment. The ruling process will also not consume much time. This is because the evidence of the prosecutor will give guidelines on how to go with the ruling and will show the defendant as a corrupt person.

In this trial David Daniels is charged with a crime of possession of a stolen property on June 2010. The indictment charges him of possessing a flat panel television screen that has been stolen from Vivian Vickers. The defendants counsel says that they have evidence that will show that John Jones gave the TV to the defendant. John Johns told the defendant that the television set belonged to him and that it was a gift. Later in the trial the prosecutor offers to show that John Jones has given David Daniels some other stolen items.

These items include 27 stolen bicycles in the year 2008, 25 stolen television receivers in 2006, and 100 pairs of stolen alligator shoes in 2004. The defense counsels objection should be sustained. In this incident, David Daniels, the defendant, is accused of possessing stolen television set. The defendant is not aware the property in question was a stolen item. John Jones who claims to be the owner of the TV has deceived the defendant that it was his property and presented it to him as a gift. Defendants counsel says that there is evidence of that.

David Daniels should not be charged with any crime of possessing the stolen property. John Jones is the one who should be convicted for the crime of stealing and giving out stolen goods. The prosecutor is in a way being malice to the defendant. In the first trial, the property in question was television set. He later comes with some more complains that David Daniels possesses some more stolen goods, which were not included in the first trial. The prosecutor does not have enough evidence to proove that the defendant had acquired the property from John Jones. He is seen not to conduct his investigation in a fair way.

In this case, David Daniels is in trial for robbery. The defendant claims that he did not commit the robbery and that it was someone else who committed the act. The defense counsel asks for permission for his defendant to testify. The defendant is allowed to testify, but in his way to the witness seat, he lurches and stumbles as he is about to reach the witness stand. At the time of the oath administration, the words of the defendant slur. The courtroom is filled with the smell of beer from the defendant. The prosecutions objection should be sustained. This is because it is evident that the defendant is drunk in the court.

A drunk person cannot give any testimony in the court of law. The prosecutor should be granted the chance to make an objection against David Daniels testimony. David Daniels is not able to convince the court that he did not commit the robbery crime. According to the law statute of testimony, every witness should be sober physically and mentally when they are giving testimony in the court of law.

The court should nullify David Daniels testimony of this day and postpone it for hearing. David Daniels should also be warned to respect the courts order every time he is summoned by the court. The court should also realize that and carry out inspection on any person who stands to give testimony or to prosecute.

Murder Trial Case of Dana Dobson

In this case, Dana Dobson is indicted for the murder of her husband. Dana claims that murder is as a result of self-defense. She testifies in order to defend herself. In her defense, she contradicts the testimony which she presents before the court. At first Dana says that she saw Harry Huber, her husband, being shot. She later claims that after undergoing therapy that was conducted by her son who, she says, is not a qualified therapist she remembers shooting her husband herself. She declares that her husband wanted to stab her and that she killed him in order to defend herself and save her life.

The prosecutor comes in and objects her testimony by claiming that it is worthless. The prosecutor argues that in her knowledge, the defendant stated that her son, who helped her regain her memory, is not a qualified hypnotist. She says that the memory the defendant claims to have regained is as a result of her sons worse suggestion. The prosecutors objection should be sustained in the fact that Dana has some questions to answer concerning her testimony.

The defendant has to explain why she first contradicted her statement that she just recalled seeing her husband being shot, and she could not remember anything else. She later claims that after being on therapy by her son for several nights, she regained her memory and remembered having shot Harry. She should also explain how unqualified hypnotist would make someone recover from such a critical condition.

Dana also uses hate speech and refers to the deceased as a dirty dog. This can also be used against her to show how she is remorseless of the act that she has committed. It could also give the prosecutor a chance to cross-examine her son, who would give useful information in case proceedings.

Rape Trial Case of Doug DeMarco

In this case, Doug DeMarco is accused for the rape of Valerie Voights. Valerie testifies that on Wednesday night, September 16th, 2009, a man who had a brown mark on his left arm and who drove silver BMW car raped her. During the trial testimonies were given from both the defendant and the prosecution. The first testimony was given by Floranda who was a neighbor to Doug. She claims that Doug is a cruel man who hated women. Floranda is a neighbor to Doug; this means that she has a good knowledge of him since she has lived close to him for quite some time. Her testimony should be considered by the court against him.

The fact that Doug hated women and is a cruel person gives a clear evidence of what he can do to women if he gets a chance. In Florandas statement, Doug is capable of rape and thus he has a case to answer to the court of law. The hate he has for women could have been the reason as to why he abused Valerie; therefore, the court should consider the testimony given by Floranda.

On the other hand, detective Carl Cable also testifies against Doug. He claims that on getting the victims report, he arrested the defendant because he was earlier convicted of a rape. The previous testimony has described him as a rapist who had a brown birthmark on his arm and drove silver BMW. The Carls testimony can be used against Doug who has already been convicted of rape.

This testimony shows that it was not the first time for the defendant to have committed such a crime. The description that was given by the victim corresponded to the Carls description of the defendant. The prosecutor has clear evidence following the previous incident of rape hence this made it easy for him to identify the defendant. The court should also consider Carls testimony. The fact that it was not the first time for Doug to be arrested for the same crime would have made it easier for the court to make a proper judgment.

The first witness for the defendant Robby Roberts testifies that Doug is an obedient man when it comes to law matters. He also says that Doug has a good reputation in the community. This testimony is disapproved by the prosecution following the testimony of Floranda and detective Cable. Floranda who is part of the community does not prove any good reputation of Doug. As a neighbor to the defendant, she says that he is a violent man who hated women. When it comes to the law matters, the defendant has once been convicted of rape. This shows that he does not abide to the laws of the country.

The objection made by Robby Roberts should be overruled, and the prosecution should be given a chance to ask questions on his testimony. During Robby Roberts cross examination, he is asked a question whether he knew that the defendant had been convicted of rape in 2002. If Robby Roberts says that he is not aware, the prosecution should be asked by the court to provide evidence of the previous conviction towards the defendant rape case. This would make it clear for Robby Roberts that his testimony is nullified by the court.

The second witness of the defendant Sammy Samuel, a patrol of the lands End Tavern and a neighborhood resident, provides the following statement. He says that he has known Doug for two years and that he has seen the defendant on his patrol to the land. He claims that on Wednesday nights between 10:30 pm and 11:00 pm on twelve occasions in the six months before the rape of the victim Doug was drinking in the lands End Tavern. Sammy's testimony should be overruled since he does not give the exact dates as to when he was in patrol.

This testimony does not give clear evidence to the court in the sense that the court deals with facts. Sammy Samuel is not sure whether it was in those twelve occasion or the days that he missed the patrol that the defendant committed the crime. Sammy's testimony can also be used against Doug since it portrays him as a drunkard. Most people who are associated with such crimes are drinkers. They also do not have a good reputation in the community.

On a cross examination, Sammy Samuel is questioned on whether he has heard that in 2002 Doug was convicted of a rape. If Sammy says that he does not have the knowledge of that incident, the court should order the prosecution to produce evidence concerning that case. This will enable Sammy Samuel to have the true character of Doug.

According to the hearing of Dougs case, the testimonies given by the prosecution are found to be material. The prosecution has provided their testimonies with evidence, and they are seen to have a good knowledge of Doug. On the other hand, the defense witnesss testimonies did not have any evidence to prove their case. In the ruling of this case, the United State District Court should consider the testimonies provided by the prosecution and use them to against Doug. It should also make sure that the victim Valerie Voights justice is found.

Conclusion

In conclusion, all the cases presented before the court of law should be well tackled. The witnesses should give out clear evidence concerning the case in order to help the judge make the final decision. Prosecutors should also learn to do thorough investigations and provide evidence that will help the court to be able to convict a criminal beyond a reasonable doubt. Fake testimonies in court are not considered.

The United States district court should ensure that all the cases presented have evidence with a lot of facts to ensure that they do not judge wrongly. The judges and the juries should also ensure that all the defendants who have been proven guilty should serve their terms in prison. This will help to reduce many crimes that are committed in the world today since the victims will fear to face the law.

Rape is one of the increasing crimes in nowadays. The victims who have suffered rape should be taken care of in hospitals to ensure that they do not acquire diseases after the incidents. Police officers should also ensure they listen to the raped victims cases, and take proper actions to the doers of the act. Breaking the rules and regulations is against the law. Therefore, it is important for action to be taken to those individuals who do not adhere to the laws that govern every state or nation.

Related essays

  1. Probation and Parole in a Drug Court
  2. Bullying
  3. Deporting Illegal Immigrants
  4. Stop and Frisk Policy in New York City
Chat with Support