Deception has always been frowned upon and looked at as a negative quality for anyone in our society. This characteristic is often associated with being dishonest which is a phenomenon that is often times linked to those who are considered to be less than upstanding citizens in our country. Despite the overwhelming majority of individuals believing in the deception and dishonest behavior being negative qualities, when these qualities are linked or associated with the government and/or law enforcement officers, there seems to be mixed opinions. Recently, a Texas criminal court case brought this into the public’s attention. A conviction of a murder suspect would get overturned as a result of deceptive practices by the investigating detective. The following will elaborate further on this particular criminal case and discuss how my attitudes regarding the incident that occurred.
The case, Ronald Lee Wilson vs. the State of Texas, occurred in courts over the course of a number of years since appeals required …show more content…
Nevertheless, the main problem with this case occurred when the deceptive practices of the investigating detective were revealed. According to the details of the case, the chief investigating detective was able to successfully get the main suspect to confess by falsely making him believe that his fingerprints were found to be on the murder weapon which he alleged was revealed on paperwork or a report from the crime lab. It turns out, this was far from the truth and not only was the suspects prints not found on the murder weapon, but the criminal report used by the investigating detective was a fake document he created with the sole purposes of trying to trick the suspect into thinking he had been identified by evidence as the one who committed the
The case, Ronald Lee Wilson vs. the State of Texas, occurred in courts over the course of a number of years since appeals required …show more content…
Nevertheless, the main problem with this case occurred when the deceptive practices of the investigating detective were revealed. According to the details of the case, the chief investigating detective was able to successfully get the main suspect to confess by falsely making him believe that his fingerprints were found to be on the murder weapon which he alleged was revealed on paperwork or a report from the crime lab. It turns out, this was far from the truth and not only was the suspects prints not found on the murder weapon, but the criminal report used by the investigating detective was a fake document he created with the sole purposes of trying to trick the suspect into thinking he had been identified by evidence as the one who committed the