Turner around four in the afternoon. When

Turner ET AL. v. United States In 1984 Catherine Fuller was found dead in an alleyway in Washington DC. She had been returning from shopping around four in the afternoon. When found she was clearly beaten and raped with no substantial evidence left behind. After a medical examination it was also unclear how many people were involved in the murder. After a plethora of over 400 interviews a theory is developed that Catherine was killed by a group of teens that had originally planned to rob her. At first 17 suspects are arrested for the crime and seven are convicted. Of the seven convicted two pled guilty, though they had conflicting accounts of details of the murder. The entire group is found guilty and sentenced to life Imprisonment. Twenty five years pass and the defendants file to have their sentences vacated, because of an unfair trial due to withhold evidence that could have proven innocenocence. The court refused the motion and was seconded by the District of Columbia due to the improbability of a different outcome of the trail. The court relies on the Acts created by a previous trail of Brady v. Maryland to withhold the evidence. This decision to withhold evidence is rooted in keeping a fair trial and not giving any favor to the defendant. Turner and the other defendants claimed that the evidence presented was no longer valid and should not be considered as evidence against the defendantsAfter the completion of the trail Judge Elena Kagan created a dissenting opinion. In this writing she claimed that the evidence that had been disclosed would have had resulted in an acquittal or in a hung jury. In this argument she also claimed that basic evidence was enough to convince the jurors of guilt and that racial profiling could have been a factor in the outcome of the trial.The main focus of the trail is if the withholding of evidence was legal, swaying to the choice of the jury and within the rights of the court. Wikipeia defines the Spoliation of evidence as “the intentional, reckless, or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, fabricating, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding.” This withholding of evidence can be excused in some circumstances. These circumstances include but are not limited to irrelevance of the evidence to the case, lack validity of the evidence, possible tampering of evidence and reception of the evidence from a valid source.Racial profiling is nothing new in the United States. It is statistically proven the a black male is five time more likely to be incarcerated than a white male. This doesn’t prove that black people are less law abiding than than white people it simply proves that law enforcement and the court system do have a bias. This bias cannot be hidden because it would be ridiculous to attempt to hide the race of the defendant from the jurors or from the judge.dIt is also notable that of those arrested and convicted most had some sort of criminal record for much more minor offences. It is proven that those who have had previous criminal activity are more likely to be incarcerated than those who have not been involved in criminal activity. This could be due to the mentality of the jurors or of the judge themself. This mentality similar to racial profiling has the potential to swing the case against the defendant without valid reasoning. This can lead to innocents being convicted or it can work reversely by letting criminals off the hook.  In some situations the criminal record will be withheld from the jurors to avoid bias. However the judge has full availability to the criminal records of both parties and is expected by the government to not be bias to any defendant because of race, gender, religion, sexuality or criminal record.  In the court case of Turner v. United States it is argued whether evidence that was previously withheld swayed the outcome of a murder trial. The evidence in question includes a witness claiming that a white man was seen running into the alley where the murder occurred and stopping into a garage where Cathrine Fuller’s body was found. A witness also claimed to hear groans from behind the garage door, although this is contradictory to other witness accounts. The defence of this by the court was that there was no found identity of the running man, nor at the time was there any reason to take this man to be a suspect.There is also a threat of racial profiling in the case it is notable that all of those convicted in the group were minority. Even more notable that the suspicious “running man” was never attempted to be tracked down or questioned. There is no record of law enforcement taking any action to question the owners of the garage if there were aware of this man.  It is unclear to what length, if any, race took in this case.Of those convicted in the original case Most of the offences by those convicted were drug related and others were minor or petty offences. None of those convicted had previous murder, rape robbery or kidnapping charges pressed against them. It is possible that these criminal records would make them immediate suspects for the murder and could have swayed the jurors vote. But once again it is unknown how much of these records was told to the jurors and therefore it cannot be determined how much this was to sway the vote. Throughout the case the court seems to be coming back to a case in 1963. This case is Brady v. Maryland. Through Brady v. Maryland it was “established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense.”