Investigators must wear _____ latex gloves while handling body ...

[theo]

Investigators must wear _____ latex gloves while handling body fluids and biological materials.
 
  Fill in the blank(s) with the appropriate word(s).

Question 2

Was attorney Smith's decision to not call the four witnesses ineffective assistance of counsel?
 
  Bryant was found guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. The prosecution case was that Fournier and Jones purchased illicit drugs from a dealer and Bryant, and began to drive off without paying. Bryant held onto their car and eventually beat Jones to death with repeated kicks. The prosecution's evidence was based on the eyewitness testimony of Fournier, described as uncooperative and intoxicated at the time, and Ewan Sharpe, a teen who did not come forward until four years after the fact, and only while undergoing police interrogation for an unrelated felony. The medical examiner made a thorough autopsy of Jones' body and testified that the cause of Jones' death was blunt head trauma. An alternate scenario was available, based on statements to police of four witnesses. Thomas Davis (1), a Marine Corps veteran and security guard, was driving in a company vehicle at the time and place of the killing and heard gunshots when Fournier and Jones's Ford Escort crashed into his car, while emerging the wrong way from a one way street with the driver slumped over the steering wheel. A white Cadillac pursued the Ford, stopped, and a light-skinned Hispanic man exited. He approached Davis' vehicle with an object in his hand. Believing the neighborhood to be dangerous, Davis displayed his own firearm, and the man departed. Davis did not see anyone beat or kick the occupant. Melissa Young-Duncan (2) and John Gartley (3) were experienced emergency medical technicians at the incident. They promptly arrived at the scene and provided the initial medical treatment to Jones. The both noticed what appeared to be a gunshot wound to Jones' left temple as well as what appeared to be a powder burn. Rene Fleury (4), Fournier's girlfriend and owner of the ford Escort, spoke with Fournier after he arrived home from the hospital and Fournier told her that there had been an incident with three Hispanic males and a gun. Bryant's defense counsel, David Smith, decided to not call the four alternate witnesses because (1) there was no evidence to support the theory of the involvement of a gunman because there was no forensic evidence of a gunshot wound and (2) introducing the possibility that a gun had been involved might have increase Bryant's sentence.
  What will be an ideal response?

[pallen55]

Answer to Question 1

Answer: disposable

Answer to Question 2

YES

Davis, Young-Duncan, Gartley and Fleury are law-abiding, credible, and neutral witnesses. None knew Bryant. None of their statements were influenced by the statements of the others. Their testimony would have worked in concert to create a credible scenario in which the cause of Jones' death was a gunshot wound to the head perpetrated by a small group of unidentified Hispanic males driving a white Cadillac, not Bryant's actions. A jury hearing their testimony could have reasonably concluded that Jones sustained a gunshot wound to the left temple and that the state's medical examiner's autopsy was potentially incomplete or inaccurate. The decision to not call these four witnesses was not a matter of sound trial strategy within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. A defendant has a right to introduce evidence that someone other than the defendant committed the crime. The defendant must, however, present evidence that directly connects a third party to the crime. It is not enough to show that another had the motive to commit the crime nor is it enough to raise a bare suspicion that some other person may have committed the crime of which the defendant is accused. It is not ineffective assistance of counsel to decline to pursue a third-party culpability defense when there is insufficient evidence to support that defense. But the testimony of the four disinterested witnesses, when considered as a whole, raises more than a bare suspicion of third-party culpability. The failure to present their relevant, plausible third-party culpability defense evidence constituted deficient performance on Smith's part. The medical examiner's testimony was not irrefutable. Though his observed injuries suffered by Jones were inconsistent with a motor vehicle accident, and he did not find evidence of a gunshot wound, the failure to call Young-Duncan and Gartley left the medical examiner's conclusion largely uncontested. Without that testimony, the jury never had to reconcile how two trained emergency medical technicians observed a pencil sized entry and exit gunshot wound to the head moments after their arrival at the scene. It is also difficult to explain how Davis, a former Marine and disinterested witness, who saw the entire incident, never saw a supposedly savage and deadly beating taking place in his presence. The court concluded that but for the deficient performance of Bryant's trial counsel, there was a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the jury's verdict, and, as a result, Bryant received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his rights.

[theo]

TY

[pallen55]

You're welcome