Chapter Four, Show Trial, of Amy Bach’s Ordinary Injustice depicts a case of wrongful conviction that occurred over twenty years ago. Michael Evans and Paul Terry, both ages seventeen, had been charged with raping and murdering nine-year-old Lisa Cabassa. The crime occurred the evening of January 14, 1976, when Lisa and her eleven year old brother Ricky were walking to a friend’s house and got separated. Later when Ricky returned home he and his family realized Lisa never made it home. The only witness to Lisa’s abduction was Judy Januszewski, who didn’t come forward until days later. The problem with the case lied in Januszewski’s credibility as a witness when she claimed to have seen the crime occur while her time card at her job indicated
…show more content…
Breen like most other attorneys was extremely competitive, often valuing the winning of a case over its moral significance. Attorney’s commonly will place their reputation and win rates over providing justice in cases. Defense attorneys have it easier as they are usually appointed cases by the D.A.’s office and attempt to provide the most reasonable outcomes for their clients. Private attorneys like Breen at the time, may choose their clients and often will chose cases that they know they will win often disregarding the actual guilt of their client. They also may be pressured by public opinion; media coverage on a case can make or break a private attorney’s career. Pressures by the public in Breen’s case may have been presented by the Cabassa family, whom hoped justice would be served quickly. As we found in the article A Shot in the Heart when justice is rushed it can result in wrongful convictions (Clifford, 2016). In this case Breen rushed into the case with only Januszewski’s testimony to aid his argument, which was later considered perjury. This resulted in Evans and Terry, innocent, to spend the majority of their young adult lives in …show more content…
To great surprise the jury convicted Evans and Terry based on only one piece of evidence, the discredited testimony of Januszewski. This sheds light on a potential problem with our jury system in the U.S. Similar to what was described in the podcast The Life of the Law: Episode 1, The Secret Power of Jury Nullification, when juries decided the innocence of people who were clearly guilty, allowing them to avoid possibly unnecessary sentences (Heffernan, 2012). The jury in this case used their power to do the almost exact opposite. The jury’s thirst to find the people responsible for such a heinous crime in their community may have enticed them to convict the two boys with minimal evidence, promoting a sense of closure for the victims’ families and the community. Juries may also feel pressures of a community to swiftly close a case which could easily result in these wrongful convictions. The power of juries has proven to play a large factor in wrongful convictions, although the jury selection process is meant to select people who won’t nullify or wrongfully convict it still
Breen like most other attorneys was extremely competitive, often valuing the winning of a case over its moral significance. Attorney’s commonly will place their reputation and win rates over providing justice in cases. Defense attorneys have it easier as they are usually appointed cases by the D.A.’s office and attempt to provide the most reasonable outcomes for their clients. Private attorneys like Breen at the time, may choose their clients and often will chose cases that they know they will win often disregarding the actual guilt of their client. They also may be pressured by public opinion; media coverage on a case can make or break a private attorney’s career. Pressures by the public in Breen’s case may have been presented by the Cabassa family, whom hoped justice would be served quickly. As we found in the article A Shot in the Heart when justice is rushed it can result in wrongful convictions (Clifford, 2016). In this case Breen rushed into the case with only Januszewski’s testimony to aid his argument, which was later considered perjury. This resulted in Evans and Terry, innocent, to spend the majority of their young adult lives in …show more content…
To great surprise the jury convicted Evans and Terry based on only one piece of evidence, the discredited testimony of Januszewski. This sheds light on a potential problem with our jury system in the U.S. Similar to what was described in the podcast The Life of the Law: Episode 1, The Secret Power of Jury Nullification, when juries decided the innocence of people who were clearly guilty, allowing them to avoid possibly unnecessary sentences (Heffernan, 2012). The jury in this case used their power to do the almost exact opposite. The jury’s thirst to find the people responsible for such a heinous crime in their community may have enticed them to convict the two boys with minimal evidence, promoting a sense of closure for the victims’ families and the community. Juries may also feel pressures of a community to swiftly close a case which could easily result in these wrongful convictions. The power of juries has proven to play a large factor in wrongful convictions, although the jury selection process is meant to select people who won’t nullify or wrongfully convict it still