State V. Scott, Free, Mays, Facts of The Case
Name
Course:
Tutor:
Institution:
Date:
State V. Scott, Free, Mays, Facts of The Case
In 2005 Scott, Free and Mays were convicted of aggravated manslaughter in the killing of Ramod Gilchrist and each sentenced to 30 years in state prison. The conviction was later overturned by an appellate court and remanded back to the state Superior Court Judge Raymond A. Reddin in Paterson for retrial because a juror- it was disclosed about 10 weeks into the first trial-had looked up certain information on the Internet about the case and possibly shared it with other jurors. Passaic County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Michael De Marco said the killing occurred because Free was jealous of Gilchrist’s dating Zwwiyya Moore, his ex-girlfriend and mother of his two children.
Free, with the help of his cousins, Mays and Scott tracked down Gilchrist while he was at the Alexander Hamilton housing complex to pick Moore up for a date on Oct. 4, 2003, according to prosecutors. Gilchrist was stabbed repeatedly in a first-floor hallway there. He died later while in surgery. Mays turned himself in to Paterson police on Oct. 7, 2003. The next day, Scott and Free surrendered to police in Greensville, S.C.
While all three were found guilty of aggravated manslaughter in the 2005 trial, they were acquitted on the most serious charge — murder. Under state law, because they were found not guilty of that charge, they cannot be charged with it again when going on retrial. Thus, jurors this time around will consider charges of aggravated manslaughter and reckless manslaughter. De Marco showed the jury a replica of the knife described by witnesses as the one used to kill Gilchrist — a double-edged knife. De Marco said the victim’s liver was sliced in half. The actual knife used in the attack was not recovered. A friend called Gilchrist on his cell phone. The prosecutor said that Gilchrist answered the phone as he lay dying and said,”Damian and them” had attacked him. He gave the same statement to police at the hospital before he died, the prosecutor said.
Defense attorney Gregory Aprile of Wayne, representing Scott, said in his opening statement that everyone agrees Gilchrist’s death was a tragedy but that jurors cannot let emotions get in the way of the facts. “Mr. Scott is denying his involvement in the death of Ramod Gilchrist”. “Mr. Scott is presumed innocent of these charges”. Defense attorney Thomas Kaiser of Passaic, representing Mays, said his client willingly let police take swab samples from his mouth and that tests found his client’s DNA did not match Gilchrist’s, as would have been the case if his blood had commingled with the victim’s at the extremely bloody crime scene.
My Opinion
Free
There is no doubt that Free had a motive for killing Gilchrist. The fact that the victim was dating his ex-girlfriend who was also the mother of his two children was enough to stir the feelings of jealousy in not just him but any other man or woman. However, there is no evidence suggesting that Free had a history of violence and there is no mention whatsoever of the reasons and manner in which he broke up with his girlfriend. There is also no mention whether Free had a criminal record or a violent past. It is therefore inconceivable that he had the ability to commit the crime of which is he accused. At the same time there is no concrete evidence to suggest that Free is actually the one who stabbed Gilchrist. The scene is described as being extremely bloody, yet there is no evidence linking Free to the scene. The knife alleged to have been used in the murder was never found, and so the prosecutor presented a replica in court. Without incriminating DNA evidence, I do not see how Free can be linked to the murder scene, not least the murder weapon.
The only thing that appears to suggest the presence of Free at the murder scene is the last words of a dying man. We do not know if Gilchrist’s words are true or false, and whether they can be admitted as evidence in a case of this magnitude. It would be wrong to convict someone on the basis of evidence that is questionable. Let us consider the incident. Gilchrist was stabbed with a knife that sliced his liver in half. It is very possible that he could have been in a state of shock from the stabbing and the excessive bleeding that is likely to result from such a stabbing. Gilchrist’s state of mind might have been altered by the stabbing, and therefore we cannot rely on what he said. It may be that the reason he mentioned Free is because he knew he was dating the defendant’s ex-girlfriend and mother of his children, and therefore assumed the defendant had a reason to harm him even though he did not hold such thoughts.
Mays
The defendant had willingly let police take swab samples from his mouth and the results of the test revealed his DNA did not match that which was found on Gilchrist. Now, what more is there to say about the defendant? He had willingly turned himself to police, which shows that he had nothing to hide and nothing to run away from. I very much doubt whether a man accused of murder or being an accomplice in a murder would turn himself to the authorities just three days after the murder took place. This shows that Mays had no fear of the ramifications of the murder, and this is because he had nothing to do with it. He had no doubts about his innocence, and hence the reason for his swift surrender to police. It is highly unlikely that a scene as bloody as the one described did not yield not even DNA evidence to link the murder suspect to the victim and the scene.
Scott
Of the three defendants, Scott seems to have the least case to answer. The only reason he may be in court is because he is Free’s cousin and the fact that he was mentioned together with Mays and Free as having tracked down Gilchrist to the Alexander Hamilton housing complex before stabbing him; nothing more than that. There is not a single witness produced by the prosecution to testify as having seen the defendant in the company of his co-accused on the day or time the murder took place. Just like Free and Mayss, I strongly believe that Scott is an innocent man. He is merely a victim of misdirected opinion fronted by the police and the prosecution. There is no basis whatsoever for his arrest and I would argue for his acquittal.
Conclusion/Opinion
The police had no right to arrest and detain the accused as they did not have a reason to do so. They should not have been subjected to humiliation by being detained, tried and sentenced to serve long sentences which they did not deserve. The only credible pointer to Free’s supposed involvement in the murder is his connection to Zwwiyya. I am unconvinced that a case of this magnitude would lack any solid evidence to warrant the imprisonment of the defendants. It is laughable when you consider the fact that after nearly eight years, the prosecution has still not managed to produce credible witnesses to testify and support their case. The defendants tracked Gilchrist to the place where he had gone to pick up Zwwiyya before stabbing him, yet there is no single witness to testify to that. Is it really possible for three grown men to stalk someone and kill him without even a single person seeing them? They most likely left the scene of the crime on foot, but still no one saw them? At the same time, there is no concrete evidence to suggest the defendants’ guilt. The murder weapon produced in court is only a replica; it cannot be used to deny three men their Freedom. I am in no way trying to underestimate the gravity of the charges brought upon the defendants, but I am also not convinced of their guilt.
I hold the opinion that the three defendants are innocent men who have had to suffer because of the complacency shown by the police and the courts. Most defendants in criminal trials are usually acquitted on the basis of the presence of a benefit of doubt, and not the mere thought that they are guilty as is the case in civil trials. This is the root of my argument, and I am confident that it holds. The victim was a young man who still had a long life to live and would have probably achieved a lot if he were not dead. It is unfortunate that such a young person had to die a death as violent as the one depicted in this case. However, I also believe that the law should always take precedence over everything else. Due process should be followed, and the right people should be held liable and responsible for crimes in the society. It is unfortunate that there are people who still have to live with the fact that the law can sometimes turn against the same people it is supposed to protect. In this case, I am positive that the law will prevail. If it does not fit you must acquit.
