Randall Adams

In America, you can go to jail for hitting a police officer, even if it was a minor injury. In 1977, Randall Dale Adams was given a death sentence for murdering a police patrolman in Dallas, Texas. The murder, which occurred one year previously, was actually performed by one David Harris, who blamed Adams for the shooting of Patrolman Robert Wood (Adams, 27, was catching a ride from Harris, 16, a few days before the shooting). Adams was explicitly innocent; he had a few eyewitnesses giving evidence that it couldn't be him, he had no knowledge of the incident whatsoever, yet the prosecution was hellbent on murdering him. Given the death sentence, he was to be executed in 1979, and in between the time that passed before the execution was scheduled, one Doctor James Grigson (a psychiatrist whom the prosecution had hired to testify against Adams during his trial) set out to make a documentary about the case, in order to validate his own personal qualms concerning his practice and whether what he was doing was right. After learning more about David Harris' background, including his extensive criminal record, Grigson also discovered that the prosecution had left out key information about eyewitnesses, and had even bribed certain witnesses into giving false testimony about Adams in court. After releasing the documentary, Adams was granted a new trial and, eventually, his freedom. Though never tried for the murder of Patrolman Wood, Harris was executed for a separate murder incident.

What I took away from this particular court case were multiple elements of how the court system worked further south of the states. First and foremost, the death penalty's presence continues to serve as a deadly reminder for how inhumane a human being can be treated (even if that human being is inhumane in the first place). It also nearly cost an innocent man his life, and with certain scenarios, such as the Adams case, you can never be too careful. I truly appreciated the intrinsic value, however, of the involvement of the psychiatrist, whose documentary went on to become the famous "Thin Blue Line". His interference with the case saved Adams his life and his dignity, and the fact that that courts did recognize their error is a tremendously uplifting factor to consider as well. They could have simply argued that the overwhelming evidence presented by Doctor Grigson was irrelevant and possibly even false, yet they knew that something foul was present. The court system almost failed us here, and yet in the end, justice was delivered.

To find out the fine details on Randall Adams' case, visit this link:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/txAdamsSummary.html

Casey Anthony

Being described by some reporters as the "trial of the century", the Casey Anthony Murder Trial was one of the biggest court cases in America as far as press coverage is concerned. In 2008, Floridian infant and daughter of Casey, Caylee Anthony, was reported missing by one Cindy
Anthony, the mother of Casey herself. Telling the authorities that her daughter's car smelled like a dead body was inside, the skeletal remains of Caylee were found in a bag outside of the woods of Casey's parents home, direct evidence that the body had been moved from Casey's automobile to her own parent's house, in an attempt at covering up what she had done. Placed under arrest, it was on the local Florida news stations quick, and it picked up speed as the story spread through the nation. The "monster mom", seen partying four days after the remains of her daughter were dug up. All the evidence was pointing toward her nearly obvious guilt, and yet after much deliberation, despite having lied to the police on four accounts, Casey Anthony was given a Not Guilty sentence, but had to serve four years for her accounts of lying to the cops. She was released from prison three years instead for good behavior.

This case, I felt was unfortunately going to be the ringleader in my mind to be the court case to demonstrate the weaker aspect of the court: the ability for technical law to overrule eyewitness testimony. There wasn't enough physical evidence to support the claims made against Casey for murdering her child, though there was enough rhetorical evidence presented by the numerous eyewitnesses and experts who were involved in the prosecution. Such an erroneous crime was shrugged off, and yet even many subtle notions were made by the defendant and her peers, some of them chuckling to themselves during her trial. Weeks after her daughter was found dead, Casey went to get a tattoo of "Beautiful life" in Italian.

For more information on the Casey Anthony Trial, visit this page and check out some of the other hyperlinks contained within the article as well:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077969,00.html

John Gotti Jr.

Changing scenery a bit, we take this next case examination to New York, back in 1992, though one could certainly say it wasn't the first time it would involve one John Gotti Jr. of the mafia. Born in 1940, Gotti Jr. started out as a petty thief in a street gang. His first arrest was when he was fourteen years old, yet he was able to talk his way out of stealing a cement mixer by

"attributing the theft to a boyhood prank."* Moving up in the criminal underground, Gotti found himself as a member of the Gambino family, the most powerful Italian mafia in the nation at the time. After aiding in and committing several felonies for the mafia, eventually he became the godfather through the usual tradition of the next-in-line being whacked by someone else. Cited by many as the "Teflon Don" during his reign as Godfather, it was an expression showing his ability to bypass the law, even when he has cold evidence against him. However, his charm and good nature towards the judicial system would not last as his criminal record stacked up during his years as the Don, and he was eventually arrested on multiple accounts of murder, drug trafficking, loan sharking and other felonies. Put up against an anonymous jury in 1992, for their sakes, and he was finally held guilty on all thirteen counts, and not even his reputation could persuade his way out of justice that year.

What I took away from this case was not so much the impact it may have had on the state of New York, or even on the people directly involved in the crime. The nature of this criminal that led me to blog about him in particular was his natural affinity of working around the judicial system, which was something I wanted to bring to light in some manner. It happens: certain people are able to buy their freedom, or rather their lives back, for what a common murderer wouldn't be able to afford. A man with the amount of influence of Gotti Jr., not just in the underground but also in the casinos in particular was able to easily slide through justice until it all stacked up and buried him under a mountain of neglect and carelessness. The court system isn't like this everywhere; that's hardly what I am suggesting with this post. All I wish to bring to light was the fact that you don't just see these kinds of happenings in gangster films.

For more information on John Gotti Jr. and his trial, visit the link below:
*http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/gottilinks.html

Michael Woodmansee

One of Rhode Island's most notorious criminals in the past few decades, Michael Woodmansee is a man who committed a crime so unspeakable, that the aftermath of his court case still resides with Rhode Island residents even to this day. A little info on his crime; back when he was sixteen, Woodmansee lured a five year old boy into his home in 1975, where he proceeded to kill and eat him. Hiding all evidence rather successfully for some time, the bag of the victim's bones was only discovered because Woodmansee attempted to strangle yet another boy, this one fourteen, in 1982. However, the fourteen year old managed to fend off Woodmansee and had him in the spotlight. Michael confessed his previous murder of five year old Jason Foreman and was jailed. Originally sentenced for 40 years, there was no trial because the family didn't want more details unearthed about the nature of their son's murder. As a result, Woodmansee's attorney accepted a plea bargain for 40 years imprisonment. To make matters worse, recent reports have been circuiting the media lately that Woodmansee had just gotten out of prison twelve years earlier than he was supposed to, on account of "good behavior", in August 2011. Fortunately, upon his release from prison, he was put in a mental institution in Cranston, Rhode Island on a 21 year probation, so Rhode Island families won't have to worry about this man being on the streets.

This case I feel was an excellent example of restraint on not just the court system, but for those families who are affected by the victims of a crime. The family was somehow able to put this horrible crime to rest and spare Woodmansee from a trial where he almost indefinitely would have been given a life sentence in prison. They didn't abuse the court system as a means to exact justice, like nearly any other family would have, and it is a rare thing to see restraint with matters such as these. However, upon hearing of Woodmansee's early release, the father did make a statement saying he would kill Woodmansee if he ever got the chance, so it really goes to show how valuable to courts are to both the victim's family and the criminal. I am hardly condoning child murder when I say that it was a good thing that he never got a trial; I merely found this family to show a tremendous amount of restraint despite the facts of the matter.

If anyone wishes to find out more about this case, visit the link below:

http://pysih.com/2011/03/30/michael-woodmansee/