Case Studies
Chapter 9: Trial and Punishment
Case 1
John Smith, a 20-year-old defendant, was charged with rape and murder. Sadie Lennon had been discovered in her apartment, brutally raped, with her head severed. When police arrested Smith, he exhibited strange behavior, arguing with people who weren’t there and hitting himself. At one point, he picked up the table and flung it across the room. The assistant district attorney wondered about his competence to stand trial.
Smith, the wealthy heir to his father’s fortune, had a skilled attorney who mounted an insanity defense. Attorney Hine claimed that Smith suffered from schizophrenia and therefore could not be held responsible for his actions. At his trial, Hine called an expert witness to testify to Smith’s mental illness. Dr. Smart provided evidence of Smith’s childhood abuse and said that in his sessions with Smith, Smith exhibited the classic symptoms of schizophrenia. Smith could not be held responsible for his actions, Dr. Smart testified, as he was unaware of what he was doing at the time of the attack.
Smith was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect and sent to a psychiatric facility. After the trial, in investigating a robbery, police discovered video evidence in the suspect’s apartment of Smith describing the crime and talking about how he would get out of the death penalty. Smith described how he would pretend to be schizophrenic and then eventually make a “miraculous recovery.” He bragged how no one would be able to touch him, even when they found out that he faked his mental illness.
Questions
Case 2
Joanna Munster was suspected of a robbery that took place in Sometown five years before. The robber had stolen cash and merchandise from the Sometown Department Store, and the crime remained unsolved. In addition to the cash, the robber had made off with the contents of one of the jewelry cases. The robber was unarmed, but had threatened the clerk with retaliation if she did not comply. At the time of the incident, police were not able to recover physical evidence, and the security cameras were broken.
Munster had been in prison for robbery before, and the incident coincided with her release and fit her modus operandi. The store clerk had described a woman who roughly fit Munster’s description but had been unable to identify Munster in a lineup, as Munster had been wearing a mask. Police kept the investigation open, but absent physical evidence and positive identification, they had little hope of solving the crime.
Two months ago, however, police discovered that Munster was the robber. She had been arrested in conjunction with another robbery where she was not so careful, and she had been wearing jewelry matching the description of the stolen merchandise when she was taken into custody. When police asked her about it, she told them that she had stolen it years ago from the Sometown Department Store. She then went on to describe the robbery from five years before. After police concluded interrogating Munster, they charged her with the crime for which she had been arrested. However, police did not charge Munster with the robbery of the Sometown Department Store.
Questions
Case 3
Jocelyn Santarpio was on trial for murder. Police had discovered the body of her husband, Mario, in the couple’s bedroom after she had called them. Jocelyn was covered in Mario’s blood, and her fingerprints were on the knife used to kill him. When she was questioned by police, Santarpio claimed that she had come home from work at her private consulting practice and discovered her husband’s body. She had attempted to revive him, she said, and that was why she was covered in his blood. Pulling the knife out, she claimed, was something she did to try to save him.
Evidence against Santarpio appeared to be damning. She had worked alone that day, and no one had seen her arrive at or leave her office. What’s more, a neighbor, Angela Barker, told police that she had seen Santarpio at the couple’s home the day of the murder and said that she looked agitated. Barker agreed to testify at trial.
When Barker took the stand for the prosecution, she testified as to Santarpio’s whereabouts the day of the murder and also claimed that the relationship between the defendant and her husband was strained. Santarpio’s defense attorney, Jane Jackson, had information that she thought relevant to Barker’s testimony. She questioned Barker about what Santarpio had been wearing when she saw her, as there were inconsistencies in her testimony. She questioned the time when Barker had seen Santarpio, as Jackson had discovered that Barker was not at home at the time when she claimed to have seen the defendant. In addition, Attorney Jackson asked Barker about her relationship with Mario Santarpio. Jocelyn Santarpio told Attorney Jackson that she thought that Barker was in love with her husband and that might have provided motivation for her testimony. After repeated questioning, Barker finally admitted that she had not seen Santarpio at the time of the murder. This admission cast enough doubt on Santarpio’s guilt that she was found innocent.
Questions
Case 4
News of the murder of celebrity Susan Lamb’s husband at the couple’s winter home in a small town in a northern state traveled like wildfire. Harold Lamb had been discovered in the hallway, shot twice in the chest and once in the head. The story broke the morning of the murder, and by that evening, the story was splashed all over the news. When police arrested Susan Lamb, the story grew even bigger. Media hordes gathered outside the small-town courthouse, so thick that court staff could hardly break through to get inside. Tabloids had already convicted Lamb, splashing stories of rumored affairs, drug binges, and past crimes.
Judge Serena Delaney was worried that the media attention would contaminate the jury pool. There might be a few residents living off the grid up in the mountains who had not heard about the murder, but the townspeople could not leave their front doors without some reporter asking them what they thought of Lamb. Lamb’s team of attorneys had considered applying for a change of venue, but since news of the murder dominated the news night after night, they doubted that they would be able to find a juror who had not heard of the case.
The trial date was set for nine months from the date of arraignment. In addition, Judge Delaney ordered the defense attorneys, the lone witness, the prosecutors, and law enforcement officers not to release to the media information that could prejudice the jury or make statements inadmissible.
When the time came to question potential jurors, the small mountain town proved that it had decent, sensible people who were able to set aside what they had heard about the case and “render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” However, in order to make sure that jurors did not learn anything about the case from the outside media while the trial was in progress, Judge Delaney ordered that they be sequestered. Surprisingly, the trial went smoothly. Susan Lamb was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Questions
Case 5
When it came time to sentence Susan Lamb for the brutal murder of her husband, prosecutors sought the death penalty. In the trial, it had come out that Lamb had been carrying on an affair with a neighbor who had testified that Lamb had suggested killing her husband as a way to get out of a prenuptial agreement.
Lamb, the prosecution proved, had plotted her husband’s murder for months and had chosen a moment for the murder that she thought would ensure that she would not be charged. She shot her husband three times, twice in the chest, and once in the head. Her plans for escaping without detection, however, were foiled, however, when a lone witness saw Lamb leaving the scene of the crime, covered in blood. Had she succeeded in getting away with the crime, Lamb would have received a substantial financial reward from her husband’s life insurance policy and would have been free of the prenuptial agreement.
Prosecutors argued that in addition to the wanton depravity of the crime, that Lamb had also committed premeditated murder. In the mountain state where the crime took place, this made the crime eligible for the death penalty. The defense argued that Lamb’s relationship with her husband was strained. Yes, Lamb had been carrying on an affair, but her husband had also cheated on her and was lately threatening to divorce her. Once, the husband had hit Lamb hard enough to send her to the hospital. Prior to the murder, Lamb had never been convicted of a crime, and she was known for doing charitable work for needy children.
Judge Delaney weighed the facts and the severity of the crime, and decided to sentence Lamb to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Questions