Summary Of The Adam Robinson Case

In January, 2015, Adam Robinson was convicted by a jury on three charges of force sexual assault. The victim was an elementary school girl that lived in the apartment building that he worked in. The prosecutor committed several things that caused the case to overturn the conviction because of misconduct. The rulings of the case then were reversed, and a new trial was requested. The prosecutor’s misconduct in this case poorly affected Robinson’s right to a fair trial. One of the most important rights of any criminal defendant is the right to a fair trial, even if they are guilty or not. A fair trial allows the defendant to remain silent during the trial, and allows them to not have to testify at their own trial, according to the 5th Amendment.

First she declared that the burden of proof was on the defendant. With a lack of solid evidence, the prosecutor attempted to then try and get the defendant to prove his defense since it was all based on accusations at that point. The defense was stating that it was all staged by the mother, who was suspected to be mentally ill. The prosecution denied that claim and said that the defense was arguing matters outside and unrelated to the case, when in fact it could have been related to the case as a solid defense. When the time came for the witnesses to be brought forward and testify, the prosecutor vouched for the witnesses. In doing so, the prosecutor could have brought on unreliable witnesses for the testimonies. In this case, she vouched for the girl who is the victim of the abuse. She spoke on the phone and gave an answer for the little girl, which nobody else would be able to give credibility to the fact that it actually happened or not. They would just need to take it on faith that the prosecutor was telling the truth, which was not good enough in the

"If the Defendant confesses to the defense attorney in the hallway this morning, the defense attorney’s job is still to do the best job he can to defend him." This was an attempt to try and sway the jury into looking down upon the defense attorney, which will still defend their client, even if they know they are guilty. I believe that whether or not the client confesses his guilt or not, the defense attorney should still do everything to spare his client, just like how the prosecution will try everything legally possible to try and get a