Murder on a Sunday Morning - Assignment Example

A Case Study of the Documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning” A Case Study of the Documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning” The documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning” 2001 depicts a crime scene in which Mr. James Stephens witnesses his wife, Mary Ann Stephens, being shot dead in the head by a young black male who was robbing her at the gun point. In their 2000 journal of criminal law, Sorensen and Pilgrim describes what followed after this incident as one of the most appalling showcase of injustice in the, by then, American courts. Since the perpetrator of the crime was a young black male, the Jacksonville police arrested Brenton Butler, a fifteen year old boy, as a suspect as he was the only young black male in the area around the crime scene at the time of the incidence. The arrest was followed by the coercion of the accused to sign a confession to the murder, which was pre-written by the police and this led the courts to find him guilty of a first degree murder thus earning him a mandatory life sentence. The purpose of this case study paper is to focus on the forensic assessment of the accused in this documentary, who was Brenton Butler. Introduction to the Case Study According to Sorensen and Pilgrim (2000), before the arrest of Butler, Mr. Stephens gave a description of perpetrator of the crime as a six feet tall skinny black male aged between 20 to 25 years. Hence, the arrest of Butler by the police was unjustified based on the previous description that had been given by the first-hand eye witness. However, the arrest of Butler was pegged on his mistaken identity by the grieved victim’s husband and given the fact that he was the only young black male available at the scene at the time of the incidence. At the police station, Butler was interrogated by the police without the knowledge of his parents and to make it worse, the Jacksonville detectives never allowed him to get any legal help prior to the interrogation (Parker 2002). During the interrogation, detective Glover violated the legal rights of the accused by attempting to force him to confess to the murder and to locate the murder weapon. Barlow’s 2005 psychological assessment journal reports that when it dawned on the detective that getting any information from the accused was impossible, he took the accused to a place full of woods near the crime scene and hit Butler one on the face and twice in the stomach. The next detective who worked on the case, Dwayne Darnell, came with a pre-written confession and forced the accused to sign it, a confession that became the principal evidence for Butler’s trial in the courts (Michael 2006). Ann Finnell and Patrick Mc. Guiness picked up the case on their capacity as public defenders against the state of Florida, and categorically proving the prosecution as wrong owing to the insufficient evidence for the produced for the trial. In their continued defense for the accused, they proved both the psychological and physical torture that Butler underwent through under the police to obtain the written confession from him. Besides, they proved beyond doubt that Butler had no intention for the crime given the fact that no murder weapons or forensic evidence was found at the scene that relates to Butler. The public defenders went ahead to prove that Butler had no past criminal records, mental disorders or a history of poor parenting (Lally 2003). The jury, thus, found Butler innocent and set him free though he had already spent six months of imprisonment pending the proceedings of his trial. After his release, the criminal was arrested, tried and convicted of the crime. According to Moffitt et al (2002), though Butler’s family settled for a compensation of $7.75 million, they had actually spent $8.5 million in battling the civil rights violation that Butler had been put through. However, the state lawyer who pleaded the case inappropriately against Butler was punished by the district judge. Even though the accused finally found his freedom, he would have not spent the six months in prison if some forensic assessments had been carried out on his trail. The real aspect of the forensic psychological assessment would have been to determine if he the necessary competency to stand trial, without any legal help. Mosley and Larrison (2001) assert that provision of Butler to the instruments of Dr. Grisso would have been helpful in making him to understand, assess and appreciate Miranda Rights. This would have enlightened him on the on the meaning of waiving his rights so that he would not have signed the false confession under pressure. Role of a Forensic Professional to This Case Study According to Ackerman (2005), the two main aspects of forensic psychology applicable to the Butler’s case are: i) The determination of Butler’s competency to stand trial and; ii) Assessing the ability of the accused to waive his Miranda Rights. Forensic Assessment Principles The main issue is whether or not to apply different standards in assessing the competency of this accused. From this documentary, “Murder on a Sunday Morning”, as well as other related studies, it has persistently become apparent that the trials and assessments of young suspects should be based on their level of maturity rather than following the Dusky standard (Skim & Mulvey, 2001). This assertion is based on the fact that compared to the adults, their cognitive and reasoning abilities have not fully developed, though the issue is still under debate in the circles of legal systems. For the forensic psychologist, it is however, crucial to assess the juvenile suspect irrespective of the standards being followed in order for his/her cognitive mental abilities and understanding of the legal proceedings are measured accurately. In this case study of the documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning”, if Butler were to be determined to be incompetent to stand trial prior to the proceedings, in my view, it would have been beneficial to Butler, since he would have been referred for treatment until he is able to stand trial, a process that would have, most likely, taken some years to reach completion (Jackson 2008). However, the court proceedings would still be abated as the juvenile suspect is treated through the outpatient program in order for him to gain competency to stand trial. The problem with this situation that could be a substantiating factor as to why competency analysis was not done in this document is that Butler was innocent and holding the trial till he is competent to resume the trial would have proven a great injustice to him. Moffitt et al (2002) considers the client who the psychologist is treating or assessing as, as well, a problematic element of the forensic psychology. The situation described in this documentary involves a legal matter in which the psychologist would have to work hand in hand with the legal team in order to determine the mental level of the juvenile suspect rather than treating the problem. The final report of the psychologist could then be biased depending on the legal team the psychologist is working with and the type of the assessment to be done on the client. Thus, two kinds of situations are likely to take place: in working with the prosecution, the psychologist’s assessment report would major on the suspect’s violent behavior with a recommendation to move the juvenile suspect to the adult court for the concentration to apply only to the punishments based on the law. Secondly, in working with the defense council, the report is most likely to recommend the maintenance of the juvenile suspect in the juvenile court with the intention of ensuring the provision of proper care and treatment to the juvenile suspect (Barlow, 2005). The Third Party Information For a forensic psychologist, the most crucial information is obtained from the individual under assessment though at certain times, vital information can be extracted from the third party instead of being directly available from the client. In this documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning”, the public defenders managed to weaken the prosecution case by contacting Butler’s mother on certain information about Butler’s characters and personality. The documentary points to an instant in which Butler’s mother repudiated a statement by the primary prosecutor to the case, detective Glover, that Butler stood up to give him a hug when he entered the room and asserted that he (Butler) was very happy to have seen the detective. Butler’s mother went ahead to confirm firmly to the court that the statement by the detective was not true since her son, as she knows him, is a very reserved person who habitually never hugs strangers. Her revelation of the character of her son in front of the jury had more positive impact on the dependence on this fact than if the psychologist a lone, had presented the same information. Additionally, the reserved personality of Butler, as revealed by his mother, could lead to short replies to the questions of the forensic examiner thus give the examiner very few information to present before the jury (Michaels 2006). Moreover, another instance of third party information to Butler’s trial involved a doctor who certified before the jury that Butler had developed the wounds on his body while in the police custody. Though a forensic psychologist could, as well, present this same information to the jury, in accordance with the 4 Cs of testimony (clarity, certainty, case specificity and clinical knowledge), a psychologist has no clinical knowledge about the wounds while a medical doctor has (Lally, 2003). This implies that the testimony that would be presented by the medical doctor presents stronger evidence as compared to the one of the psychologist. The medical doctor also has the necessary clinical knowledge to testify as to how the suspect may have acquired the wounds while a psychologist would have no idea as pertaining to the source of the wounds. Thus, the testimony of the medical doctor provided important third party information to the proceedings of Butler’s trial, in accordance with the 4 Cs of testimony, thus weakening the prosecution case. Multicultural Issues Related To This Case Study Owing to the fact that Butler was the only young black male spotted around the area of the crime scene, he obviously became the suspect to this crime. Since Butler was the only victim of racial profiling, as far as the case is concerned, this is the only multicultural issue emergent in this forensic study. Butler was younger and shorter than the prime suspect to the crime as was detailed by the only eye witness to the crime, Mr. James Stephens. Despite this obvious contradiction in the characteristic features of the described suspect and Butler, the police still arrested Butler as a suspect to the crime, given that he was the only young black male present at the crime scene. This multicultural issue leading to the arrest of the innocent Butler for scrutiny by the police could be the main point of argument by the defense team. Mosley and Larrison (2001) points out that for a psychologist, the point would most probably be taken in as one of the proofs that the sort of racial profiling, depicted in this case, happens quite often across the US, by considering to a number of related cases to this documentary. Forensic Considerations to the Issue in the Case Study According to Otto and Heilbrun (2002), it is absolutely possible for a juvenile court to transfer a juvenile suspect, caught of committing violent crimes, to an adult court for prosecution. The transferred juvenile will then be confined in adult prison if found guilty of the offense. The juvenile court system, however, do not give any provisions for trialing a juvenile directly in an adult court, before passing through it. In the documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning” Butler was tried directly in the adult court without prior prosecution and referral from the juvenile court. This brings uncertainty in terms of the procedure that was followed in transferring him to the adult court. Considerations of the Court The most important consideration the court has to make in this case is the age of the juvenile suspect and the outcome of his interrogation process. At 15 years old, Butler had not yet developed the cognitive abilities and the thinking capacity of an adult. At this age, he had neither known his rights nor the police interrogation procedure. Thus there was a possibility that the whole of his interrogation procedure could yield insincere reported out of him. Given the fact that Butler was facing a legal issue for the first time, he was completely unaware of his Miranda Rights and possibly, the police must have taken advantage over him due this of his lack of information. Another crucial issue that the court has to consider is the third party information about Butler’s wounds as reported by the medical doctor. The confession by the medical doctor certified that Butler was wounded by police in their attempt to make him sign the confession that had been pre-written by the police themselves and not by Butler (Packer 2008). Thus, it is important that the court would have to look into the details of all these considerations before taking into account, the confession presented before the jury concerning Butler. Forensic Assessment Instruments For this case study of the documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning”, in order to make a strong and an effective case against the prosecution council of the accused, the following forensic assessment instruments would have to be considered by the defense council of the accused: i) The ability of the accused to waive his Miranda Rights – since the accused in this case was juvenile; it possibly meant that he must have not known his Miranda rights. His defense council thus, had the responsibility of ensuring that his rights are respected and that he is not exposed to any form of intimidation by police. ii) The direct trial of the juvenile suspect in an adult court system – directly trialing the accused in an adult court system without referral from the juvenile court is a violation of the rights of the accused and his defence team should have built on this fact to save him from the prosecution. iii) The competency of the accused to stand trial – if the accused had been assessed by a forensic psychologist, it would be possible to determine if he had the competency to stand trial or not. iv) The psychological evaluation of the accused for any abnormal behavior or mental disorder/problem. Forensic Elements The forensic psychologist assigned to this case should consider, most importantly, that the accused is a juvenile and usually not every analytical procedure is designed to be used on a juvenile. The fact that this accused was, as well, tried in an adult court system brings a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the rights that are given to such a juvenile in the proceedings in the adult court system. Provided that the juvenile being transferred to the adult court system possesses the same cognitive abilities and understanding of the legal system just as an adult, an assumption is usually made that the juvenile has the same rights and must adhere to the same rules as those of an adult but this is usually not the case (Barlow, 2005). Additionally, it would be the work of the forensic psychologist to prove, beyond doubt, the reason as to why the eye witness (the victim’s husband) in this case provided an inaccurate testimony, as his testimony is one of the most important evidences in this case. Ability to Waive Miranda Rights In order to access, understand and appreciate Miranda Rights, the instruments of Dr. Grisso would have been much useful for the defense of the accused in this case (Ackerman, 2006). It would be highly recommended that the forensic psychologist in this case should apply Dr. Grisso’s assessment in analyzing the ability of the juvenile to understand and waive his Miranda Rights in a this legal issue. It is important to note that this form of assessment was developed in the 1970’s with its amendment coming in 2003, and the sole reason for its development was to cater for the changes made in the legal systems (Heilbrun, Grisson & Goldstein, 2008). For the Butler’s case, the characteristic of the assessment most applicable to his case is his right, as an arrested person, not to give any answers to any form of police interrogation until he is provided with the legal assistance of a lawyer by the police. It is now obvious that if this form of assessment would have been applied in relation to the case of the accused in the documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning”, the juvenile suspect would have not undergone the brutal torture by the police and he would not have yielded to signing the pre-written confession by the police. In Butler’s case, it is evidently obvious that the police never clarified to him that he had the right to demand for an attorney and to remain silent until he has been provided with the necessary legal help (Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2000). Forensic Assessment Report According to this documentary, no indication exists that likely suggests that there was a request or completion of any forensic report to the Butler’s case. The juvenile was taken directly to the adult court system and stood his trial without reference to any forensic report on his competency to stand trial without any form of legal help. Though the law clearly specifies the elements to be included in a forensic report presented in the courts, no standards have been set yet for carrying out a competency analysis on juvenile (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001). A number of studies have investigated the different methods that have been extensively applied and found to be most effective and accurate for evaluating competency. Since no standards have been set for evaluating juvenile competency, the studies have, from time to time, realized a vast level of discrepancy in the forensic reports generated from the application of these methods. Still, the proceedings in this case should have taken into consideration the assessment of Butler’s competency to stand trial and whether or not he was aware of his Miranda rights and his ability as a juvenile to waiver off his Miranda rights (Jackson, 2008). Implications of the Assessment Report In the event that the forensic assessment was conducted to determine Butler’s competency to stand trial and his understanding of his Miranda rights as a person arrested, the report would have produced an effective impact on the decision of the jury handling his case. The presentation of the forensic report before the court in relation to the ability of the accused to waive off his Miranda rights, given the fact that he was juvenile, would have led the court to consider his age and unawareness of the legal system before trialing him for murder in the adult court system (Moffitt et al, 2002). If the forensic report had, as well, indicated to the jury that Butler was not competent enough to stand trial, he would have been referred for treatment with the case put on hold to wait for him to regain the necessary competency to stand the trial before the court. The forensic report would, as well, revealed to the court that the due to the unawareness of the accused of his Miranda rights, he had been coerced to sign the false confession that was prepared by the police to be used as evidence for his prosecution. This revelation would have led to the affirmation of the innocence of the accused (Michael, 2006). Conclusion The case involving the accused in this documentary “Murder on a Sunday Morning” illustrates the need to have a forensic psychologist included in the proceedings of a court especially those involving a juvenile. This is because juveniles are usually immature and are aware and are unaware of their Miranda rights hence can be easily manipulated when exposed to interrogation by the prosecution team without any legal assistance. It is also necessary that the juveniles be exposed to different methods of assessments to those exposed to the adult suspects. In cases whereby a juvenile has been referred to the adult court system by the juvenile law court, it should be ensured that measures are put in place for the adult court system not to intimidate or exploit the juvenile during the proceedings of the trial. It is these considerations that led to the saving of Butler from the unfair prosecution he went through in the adult court system as well as the intimidation he suffered under the interrogation of the police officers. References Ackerman, M. J. (2006). Forensic report writing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 59-72. Barlow, D. H. (2005). Whats new about evidenced-based assessment? Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 308-311. Heilbrun, K., Grisson, T., & Goldstein, A. N. (2008). Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Jackson, R. (Ed.). (2008). Learning forensic assessment. New York: Routledge. Lally, S. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34(5), 491-498. Michaels, M. H. (2006). Ethical considerations in writing psychological assessment reports. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 47-58. Moffitt, T. E., Avshalom, C., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. J. (2002). Males on the life-course persistent and adolescent-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years. Development and Psychopathology, 14(1), 179-207. Mosley, D., Thyer, B. A., & Larrison, C. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of the Mosley Forensic Competency Scale. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 4(1), 41-48. Otto, R. K., & Heilbrun, K. (2002). The practice of forensic psychology: A look toward the future in light of the past. American Psychologist, 57(1), 5-18. Packer, I. K. (2008). Specialized practice in forensic psychology: Opportunities and obstacles. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(2), 245-249. Skeem, J. L., & Mulvey, E. P. (2001). Psychopathy and community violence among civil psychiatric patients: Results from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(3), 358-374. Sorensen, J. R., & Pilgrim, R. L. (2000). An actuarial risk assessment of violence posed by capital murder defendants. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90(4), 1251-1270. Read More