A  Case study of Marvin Anderson’s wrongful conviction

Natural rights are   the most fundamental civil rights in the entire universe. Going against such privileges disturbs the normal course of humanity. The fact that a person is born, certainly grants him or her the natural rights. The basic freedoms  that comes  as a result  of  living  allows  an  individual to live as they   see  fit  without  any  disruption  from a government. Other vital terms such as Interpretations and strict constructionist will   also come into play in the case study. This paper will look into the illegal conviction of Marvin Anderson, prosecution misconduct and judicial wrongdoing of the case while at the same time giving in-depth analysis of the impact of the act (Innocent project, 2017).

Case summary

In the   year 1982, a young lady   claimed that a black man raped her. After she laid bare her claims to the law enforcers, a policeman identified Marvin as a suspect simply because he earlier told   the   victim that he was in a relationship with a Caucasian woman. More so, Marvin was the only   black man with a Caucasian female. Since Marvin had no past felonies, law enforcers went to his work place   and took his photo. Later, the victim identified Marvin as the perpetrator of the crime after reviewing both mugshots and lineups. It is good to note that Marvin was the only individual in the lineup whose mugshot was subject to review by the victim (Innocent project, 2017).

Another suspect of the case was a black man, John Lincoln. He  was  person of  interest in the  case  because  the  bicycle  that  the  perpetrator  escaped  with  was the  same one Lincoln owned. Lincoln stole the bike a few hours before the crime took place. Although Lincoln admitted that he was the real perpetrator, the same judge dismissed his claims (Innocent project, 2017). 

 

Prosecution misconduct

First of all, the  prosecution  was made up of  an all-white  jury , leaving  loop holes  for bias  and  unfair  behavior. The jury ended up convicting an innocent man and slapping him with two hundred and ten years on all accounts charged. Secondly, after Lincoln admitted to the crime in 1988, Anderson remained in custody. The admission was not  casual  and he did it  under  oath  but  due to  some queer  reason, the  prosecution denied  the  information and  held to their conviction. The prosecution did not handle evidence with care. It was an uphill task for Marvin to prove innocence after the kit bearing all the evidence was disposed of by the court (Innocent project, 2017).

Defense misconduct or wrongdoing

Anderson  wanted  Lincoln and     the  owner  of the  bicycle   to  appear in court as  witnesses but the  defense  denied his  request (Innocent project, 2017).

 Strict constructionist

 The  term  strict  constructionist  appear  when  Anderson  contacts Innocence  project  after  learning  that the  content of  evidence  kit  was  destroyed. The right to seek justice via an external   source in the manner in which Marvin did is not recorded anywhere in the constitution, yet it came in handy (Innocent project, 2017).

Interpretationist

 The term comes into context when Anderson’s defense team   gets permit to analyze the   DNA evidence. The   changing  standards allowed for examination of  new material and  comparing  them  with  sperms  from the  body  of the  victim to prove that Anderson was not  guilty   of   the  crime. The sperms   from the victim’s body showed that Anderson was not guilty (Innocent project, 2017).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

Innocent project (2017). Madeo

 Retrieved from:  https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/marvin-anderson/