Jermaine Arrington, who has been incarcerated for the past 15 years, was just released last week after being exonerated of 2nd Degree Murder. In 1994, two groups of friends were attending a cookout in Montgomery County when a dispute erupted between the two groups. Paul Simmons was stabbed and Jermaine Arrington was accused of the stabbing, five witnesses claiming that he had done it—two saying they had seen Arrington stab Simmons and three saying that they had heard Arrington claim they had stabbed Simmons. Prosecutors were bolstered in their argument by the testimony of a forensic chemist. The scientist claimed that the blood found on the sweatpants of Jermaine Arrington was a match to Paul Simmons’ blood through various enzyme tests. 15 years later and the enzyme tests and the testimony from the witnesses are being brought into question. Arrington and his lawyer had ordered a new blood test while Arrington was behind bars and the results stated that the blood found on Jermaine Arrington’s sweatpants was not that of Paul Simmons but of some unknown individual. This was very heartening for the defense and another trial was ordered. Now Arrington is a free man and just wants to put the last 15 years of his life behind him.
This incident is important because it is a sobering thought about forensic science and how much stock society throws into a sometimes-haphazard process. Because the test results were one thing and not the other a man went to jail for 15 years of his life and was then subsequently released from jail. The article was almost a comment on how much more rigorous testing needs to be in question of forensic evidence because one wrong test result could ruin any given suspect’s life and could make a guilty person free. All in the entire article was comprehensive and a good summary of a pretty unfortunate incident. Jermaine Arrington is now free and the family of Paul Simmons is mournful, still believing that Arrington is the killer and that this is no justice for Simmons’ memory.
Works Cited
Posted for J. O'Neill
4 comments:
I though this was a very interesting and eye opening article. Justin did a very good job summing up this article. This article brings attention to the validity of forensic testing and clearly shows that every test needs to be performed with extensive care and accuracy. Justin did a good job in explaining the background of the case. He had specific details, such as the enzyme test performed before and after the trial. This article was presented very well and really interested me.
Overall, I thought it was very well done. I would have included a little bit more detail, such as the reason for the dispute between Arrington and Simmons. Also it should have been organized into paragraphs better.
This article clearly shows the need for forensic scientist to perform their tests with the greatest care to ensure that their results are valid.
Forensics Xavier Lessane
Justin
Justin got right to the point and presented all of his points. He told the story well, he new what he was talking about, he new the whole story like he read it over plenty of times and he showed all of the convictions from others and what other people said who did the stabbing. This was a great story from how they had the conviction point of view and the scientist point of view. He showed what the scientist did to find out who was the muder when they all were on. Trial this story had many great points but he could have did better on more details of the scientist from what they used. Another thing he could have done better on was this was taken place. The thing that impressed me was how the scientist found how who the murder was and what they did.
I really liked the Justin’s analysis of why he liked the article. It was very thorough and explained what the victims thought. Plus it gave the reasons that the article is important to society at large and to Simmons especially. I also liked the beginning of the summary as it gave a very good over view of the original rime that started all of this. It also described the evidence against Simmons in detail. He also did include a critic of the article and explained why it was good I detail.
I do however wish that he had described the enzyme test that he kept mentioning. That might be because the article did not describe it but I think it would have been interesting. I also would like to know what happened to the five witnesses and whether the man really was guilty. It almost seems like he would have been convicted even without the blood. So how was he exonerated when there were so many witnesses?
I thought this article was especially interesting because it is still a mystery. I mean no one really knows now who actually did it. Maybe Simmons really did do it and the blood had nothing to do with the crime or maybe the blood belongs to someone else, the real murderer.
I think that Justin chose a great article to write about; I found it to be very interesting how the case played out. I think that he did a great job summarizing up the article also I think that he made a great point about the investigation system. He says that this case shows how important it is to make sure that all evidence is thoroughly investigated. I think that it was great the way in which he showed us how the guy had to spend 15 years in prison just because someone did not do their job. However I think that he could have gone a little more into depth in the method in which this was discovered so that we could get a real feel for the science aspect part of it. Also what happened to the first witness in all of this? Over all I think that this was a very interesting article because it was more interesting than hearing about something that drags on. I think that Justin did a great job at explaining all of this in his article.
Post a Comment