Crime against a Person: In the court case, United States V. Wanoskia, the defendant was convicted by a jury of 2nd degree murder towards his wife, Linda Martinez. The defendant was a Native American. The crime occurred on April 8, 1984, where the defendant’s wife was shot in the head and killed. The defendant’s wife had been out earlier with her friend. The defendant wife’s friend, Menarco stated that Linda had an argument earlier in the day with her husband, Elward Roe Wanoskia. Linda later on headed home and argued with Wanoskia and after all that, Linda was shot. The defendant testified that his wife shot herself after the argument. At trial, the government sought to show by expert testimony and a demonstration that the defendant’s wife didn’t shoot herself. The demonstration was all based in the length of an individual’s arm to see how far away your arm can be to shoot yourself in the head. Based on the experiment, it revealed that it was literally impossible for someone to have shot themselves from the distance stated at trial, even for a tall person, who tends to have longer arms. The defendant’s primary challenge to the government was that there was insufficient evidence of his wife’s arm. This argument could be used to defend him, the accused one because in reality, there is no evidence …show more content…
Because of this, the defendant argued that the government’s use of demonstrative evidence was prejudicial and that his conviction violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause because if he wasn’t “Indian”, he would have been subjected to a minor and less harsh of a penalty under