Ronald Wilson Crime Case

RonaldWilson Crime Case

TheRonald crime case occurred in 2006 in Texas State of the USA. It is acase that has elicited a lot of controversy in the wider UnitedStates of America with the suitability or eligibility of applicationsof some of the State laws taking the center stage. It all startedwhen Ronald Lee Wilson call the state police helpline number 911 toinform them that he has just discovered a dead body on the SanAntonio street while strolling around with his son. The body belongedto Amos Anguiano Gutierrez. Apparently, Amos had been killed by justa single gunshot by his slayers. Right next to his lifeless body wasa magazine clip. After that, an investigation was launched by thestate law enforcers. At the helm of these investigations was anexperienced San Antonio detective called Raymond Ronald. Through hisexperienced, it is believed that he was aware of both the state andfederal laws and that he also knew that the state and federal courtshave prohibited the use of use of deception and trickery by lawenforcers to coax suspects into submitting to a crime. But instead,Ronald believed that his experienced could enable him violate theselaws intelligently and get the suspect in a fix.

Hecommitted this travesty by finding an old crime lab report that heused as a template to fabricate a false crime report against Ronald.The new report had Wilson’s city, county, state, federal lawenforcement identification numbers et al. He later proceeded withthis crime report to the interrogation room for a suspect grillingsession that was recorded on visual accounts. After several minutesof interrogation, Roberts informed Ronald that the report andevidence he was presenting was conducted by the professionaldetectives who rarely err when doing their investigations. This was alead-in which left Ronald with a no options but to admit to the crimeafter which he was later sentenced for felony murder.

Ronald’scharges were later overturned but the Texas court of criminal appealafter his attorney, Patrick Hancook, successfully filed a motion tosuppress the confession obtained from his client through a fabricatedcriminal lab report. Hancook won albeit narrowly because it was fiveagainst four judges in the criminal appeal court that supported theoverturn. The appeal was largely based on various criminal articlesin the Texas laws. One of these laws is Article 37.09(a) (2) in theTexas penal code which states that if a person, with full knowledgeof an ongoing investigation process present or uses a false documentknowingly with an intent to influence that result of theinvestigation, has breached the Texas criminal law (Emanuel, 2010).Also in contestation were articles 37.10 of Texas penal code andarticle 38.23 of the Texas code of criminal procedures. After thisappeal, the trial chamber conducted two hearings on the motion whichmade detective Roberts to concede that he had indeed made a mess ofthe investigation process.

Thesuccess of this appeal ruffled feathers across the different legalechelons not only in Texas but the wider state of America. It was ashock to the law enforcement community in general. Amongst the lawenforcers who were dissents was the first District Attorney CliffHerberg. Dissenting opinion is the act of expressing opinions thatare in disharmony with the common or popular ones. Mr. Herberggainsaid the ruling on the basis that staged situations are done inmost cases, and the courts have always vouched for this conduct. Hecited drug stings as an example. The dissents were contending whetherDetective Roberts had committed a crime by falsifying a crime report.Present in the federal constitutional exclusive rule is an articlethat limits the use of fake evidence in crimes that violate therights of the defendant. They argued that the aforementioned section37.09 of the penal code protected neither a suspect from having hisliberty interest infringed nor were the appellant’s privacyinterests implicated by any violation of section 37.09. The latterstates that an appellant lacks standings to demand the exclusion ofevidence extracted in violation of section 37.09.Nonetheless, theaccused version of the story also wavered a lot. Sometimes headmitted that he pulled the trigger accidentally as he was eithertrying to sell Guiterrez the gun or rob him though a witness to thatcase narrated to the latter.

Asa judge presiding over this case, it is imperative to recognize thefact that use of fabricated evidence may sometimes be necessary insuspect interrogation more so in cases that are involvingunidentifiable portions of evidence like in this Ronald’s criminalcase. However, it is also important to note that a suspect may beduped into submitting to a crime that he never committed due to hisignorance of the legal proceedings or his constitutional rights. Inthat case, a client’s admission should not be accepted until asufficient evidenced is provided against him. It is also importantfor a detective to inform the court of law on how and why he/sheintends to use trickery or deception against a suspect during aninvestigation process. This will ensure the much needed crucialchecks and balances during the hearings and hence increasing theprecision in serving of justice.

WorksCited

Emanuel,Steven. CriminalLaw.4th ed. New York, NY: Aspen, 2010. Print

Kapitan,Craig. Detective`sfake fingerprint report leads to new sentence.mySA, 24 May. 2013. Web. 4 Nov. 2015.

TexasCriminal Codes &amp Rules: Annotated. Dallas, TX: Texas Lawyer,1993. Print