We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Long-delayed Murder Case Goes To Trial Essay Sample

essay
The whole doc is available only for registered users OPEN DOC
  • Pages:
  • Word count: 742
  • Category: jury

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all help you need with your essay and educational issues.

Get Access

Long-delayed Murder Case Goes To Trial Essay Sample

            Watching a jury trial was a novel experience for me because I came from a country where jury trial is not practiced. On trial for homicide was Norgin Baez, a 25-year-old immigrant from the Dominican Republic. He was charged with the alleged motiveless killing on December 22, 2002 of one Mabel Melo, 20 years of age, a fellow immigrant from the Dominican Republic and the fiancée and mother of a one-year-old son of Francisco Pequero, a cousin of the accused. The records of the case showed that the accused Baez, in the company of at least another unidentified person, entered the apartment of the victim and stabbed her 59 times in different parts of her body as they dragged her across the apartment. They finally left her body in the kitchen but not before pulling her panties down to her hips. Her dead body was discovered the following morning by her landlady who was occupying an upstairs apartment (Cramer).

            According to the accounts of the witnesses, when Melo was killed, her fiancé, Francisco Peguero, and some of his relatives immediately suspected Baez. So two days following the incident, three of Peguero’s relatives engaged the services of Baez to shovel snow. However, instead of putting him to work shoveling snow, they sidetracked him to a garage where they threatened to kill both him and his mother if he did not go to the police and confess to killing Melo. Thus afraid not only for his life but also that of his mother, Baez gave himself up to the Jamaica Plain police and confessed to the brutal killing of Mabel Melo (Cramer).

            The case took six long years to finally reach the court due to several reasons, namely: several changes in the prosecutors handling the case, motions filed by defense lawyer Daniel Solomon for the suppression of the confession made by Baez on the ground that the accused possessed a less than average intelligence who could not even qualify for a driver’s license. Solomon claimed that Baez was also a very complacent individual who was always prepared to please people by doing what they tell him to do and say (Cramer).

            The case was finally brought before a jury on September 15, 2008 at the Suffolk Superior Court with Assistant District Attorney Gretchen Lundgren heading the prosecution team and defense lawyer Daniel Solomon appearing for the accused Baez. I watched with fascination, the case being my first jury trial experience. My first impression was that the courtroom was not very large, contrary to what I expected. In fact it was only slightly larger than our school classroom. Then I observed that the jury which was composed of sixteen men and women appeared to me as highly diversified as a group could possibly get. I guessed then that perhaps diversity is needed for a neutral and well-represented deliberation of the case.

            I watched the prosecutor and the defense lawyer argue the case in front of the judge and the jury. In one instance, the Assistant District Attorney told the members of the jury that police investigators were convinced of the authenticity of the confession because Baez had described the elements of the crime as well as the scene of the crime very accurately. The defense, on the other hand, argued that the only evidence against the accused is his confession which, according to Solomon, was obtained through coercion and was therefore “contaminated” and should not be admitted as evidence. Solomon also argued that the accused was not even linked to the scene of the crime by any physical evidence and that the prosecution was only trying the case based solely on the confession of an individual who has less than average intelligence.

            Unfortunately, the judge called for a lunch break at 12:50 that would last until 2:00 p.m. I could not wait for the resumption of the trial as I had to return to class. However, the last thing I heard was the judge admonishing the members of the jury not to talk about the case among themselves or with any other parties with interest in the case, such as the family of the victim and the accused and the lawyers representing both parties.

Work Cited

Cramer, Maria. “Long-delayed murder case goes to trial.” The Boston Globe. 16 September

  1. 20 September 2008.

<http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/16/long_delayed_murder_case_goes_to_trial/>

We can write a custom essay

According to Your Specific Requirements

Order an essay

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

The Grand Jury System

What is a Grand Jury and what is it's purpose According to the Federal Grand Jury website, [1] a grand jury is a group of people that are selected and sworn in by a court, just like jurors that are chosen to serve on a trial jury (such as the jury in the O.J. Simpson criminal case or in the Louise Woodward ("au pair") murder...

The Seventh Amendment

The Seventh Amendment lays the foundation for jury trials for civil litigants in the way criminal defendants are protected from the self-will of courts through the Sixth Amendment. The adoption of the amendment was a breakthrough in the development of the legal system in the new state. Although its application was subject to interpretation, the basic understanding of civil juries remains intact to this day....

The American Jury System: Is it Really...

According to Alexander Hamilton the Founding Fathers esteemed the virtues of the jury trial. The less enthusiastic of them considered it, at the least, "a valuable safeguard to liberty"; while others regarded it "as the very palladium of free government."[1] All were "satisfied of the utility of the institution, and of its friendly aspect of liberty." The jury has been called the conscience of the...

Courtroom Participants' Professional Standards

Prosecutorial misconduct is defined as the use of deceptive, illegal or reprehensible methods used by a prosecutor, to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury. Wrongful convictions in this country are nothing new to the criminal justice system. They are as old as the system itself, and they will continue to exist as long as the fallibility of human judgment continues. Courtroom Participants...

Courtroom Workgroup

In The United States criminal justice system, a Courtroom Workgroup is an informal arrangement between a criminal prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and the judicial officer. This foundational concept in the academic discipline of criminal justice, recharacterizes the seemingly adversarial courtroom participants as collaborators in "doing justice." The courtroom workgroup was proposed by Eisenstein and Jacob in 1977 to explain their observations of the ways courts,...

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email.

We can't stand spam as much as you do No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own.
logo

Emma Taylor

online

Hi there!
Would you like to get such a paper?
How about getting a customized one?