Summary Of The Trial Of George Junius Stinny

The prosecution of George Junius Stinney Jr. evokes sadness and an utter disgust in those people who sought to coerce a child to confess to a crime with the promise of an ice cream cone. The articles and video’s raise so many questions of why this child was accused. First there is no physical evidence connecting this young boy to the girls other than him seeing them that day. Another issues that bothers me is how this child was questioned without having a lawyer or his parents present. It is important to look at the time period in which this occurred. 1944 was a racially charged time, and racial profiling has always been a part of the criminal justice system. Little has been done to root out the problem and to this day we are still dealing with issues and ramifications of such acts. The video raises so many questions about how and why this boy was targeted as the perpetrator, and my belief is that they wanted

First, George Stinney had seen the girls the day of the murder. Second, he also led the police to a metal object. Third, he confessed to the murder of the girls. The next step is to look at the circumstances of the case. Stinney had told one of the search party members that he had seen the girls the day they were murdered, which is not an admission of guilt. Stinney led police to a metal object, even though the corners report stated the murder weapon a hammer, and a metal object no way constitutes a hammer. Last but not lease the investigators, said he confessed, however, there was no written confession, no legal representation, nor were the parents involved in the proceedings. Next we must look at the trial itself. The jury was an all-white panel, lasted one day, no written record of the confession, and the defense called few to no witnesses in the case. The jury took 10 minutes to convict. The handling of this case from beginning to end all point to gross fundamental and Constitutional violations of due