Research a Criminal Investigation
Most high-profile cases have been delayed due to the coronavirus pandemic, the cases were scheduled to November and others in October (Schildkraut, 2016). For instance, the case of Robert dust, Julian Assange, and Golden state murder case, the case of Jarrod Ramos, and many others. According to the American civil liberties union, Americans’ civil rights are a priority through due process, equal protection laws, and privacy laws. Various courthouses have been closed in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania after staff reported to have contracted COVID-19. The paper is research about Jarrod Ramos’s criminal investigation case.
Jarrod Ramos investigating the case, is concerned with murder allegations for firing a gun in a newsroom, leaving five people dead. Ramos was a government employee before being fired and an encounter with police officers before the case (Schildkraut, 2016). Ramos was the first to be suspected by a famous lawyer in Annapolis known as McCarthy, where to MC Cathy, Ramos had been accused of harassing a woman in 2011.McCarthy was the victim’s lawyer and concluded that Ramos was out stalking her for the past encounter. According to Annapolis magazine, Ramos used smoke grenades and a gun to attack the capital Gazette employers (Kristensen, and Petersen, 2016). Law enforcement has been investigating the case by storming into the accused home. The police officer started the investigation process through the newspaper’s confirmed news and other sources that identify Ramos as the significant suspect.
McLaughlin’s investigation team began by reviewing a Twitter account that featured two capital Gazette employers, Eric Hartley, and Thomas Marquardt, a former publisher (Schildkraut, 2016). In 2012, Ramos had used the employees as a defendant against a harassment case in 2011. They provided a message of defense concerning corrupt corporates and careers. Before the capital shooting, police officers provided that the account owner had posted a message directing to someone. The message read that “for you, leave me alone.”
According to Investigation police officers, different people provided different testimonies after interviews. Some of the people interviewed included Ramos’s aunt and Marquardt, a colleague to Ramos (Schildkraut, 2016). According to Marquardt, Ramos had started harassing staff after the 2011 allegation. Also, Ramos could threaten staff, where Marquardt had to caution the wife concerning Ramos’s threats. Marquart further provides that filling a restraining order was in mind, but later decided against it. According to Ramos, aunt, Ramos was well-behaved, raised well, intelligent, but anti-social. Police officers provisions were in relation to prior harassment case involving McCarthy (Kristensen, and Petersen, 2016). Mr. Ramos had written a letter to McCarthy, which made her uncomfortable. On the other hand, Ramos had sued a former employer in a subcontract with the labor statistics bureau. After investigation, police officers provided that Jarrod Ramos did not have an identification card. His image was recognized through facial recognition technology, conflicted with Gazette, and the smoke grenades were found in one of his backpacks.
According to the investigation, procedures and powers are vital in the investigation, for instance, access to documents, witnesses, and suspects (Schildkraut, 2016). Investigation police officers investigated in the aright manner by conducting appropriate interviews for witnesses. The interviews were conducted, upholding the rights of witnesses and suspects. Also, the interview concentrated on the matter of making essential notes during the interview. Investigators upheld integrity as the main principle for police officers; for instance the police officers did not report discrimination cases during the interview. The police officers interviewed neighbors, family members, and colleagues at work to identify the suspect’s character. On the other hand, the investigation (Schildkraut, 2016). On the other hand, the investigators accessed the Capital Gazette for more information about the high-profile murder. The investigators provided accurately written reports concerning the case specified the offense, the scope of the case, and various evidence sources.
Storming in Jarrod Ramos’s residence and taking pictures was an invasion of privacy and against the fourteenth amendment. The police officers could have first asked for permission from Ramos the property owner (Schildkraut, 2016). On the other hand, police officers did not interview the suspect; instead, interviewed witnesses. It would have been fair if the investigation police officers’ interviewed Baron for more information. On the other hand, Baron’s frequent interviews in court were against the suspect’s privacy rights. According to Mathew Connell, a public defender, Baron had the right to refuse interviews and illegal search. The defendant pleaded guilty on twenty-eight October 2020 for five counts of murder, killing Gerald Fischmann, John McNamara, Rebecca Smith, and Wendi Winters, and eighteen related offenses after being denied bail (Cassell, 2018). However, Baron’s attorney used an insanity defense.
According to the attorney, Baron was insane during the mass shooting. In December, a jury will decide whether Baron will be staying in jail for life or in a psychiatric hospital. According to t6he opponent’s assistant attorney, Baron had no privacy expectation because Saathoff interrogation was conducted upon permission from jail staff (Cassell, 2018). Also, peeping through the jail window was not a search. Saathoff, a mental health professional, wanted to monitor Baron’s behaviors. The mental health profession was denied a chance to interview Baron to identify whether the accused was insane. Jarrod Ramos was put in an isolated jail for twenty-three hours waiting for trial (Schildkraut, 2016). According to medical experts, Jarrod never responded to any questions concerning his health, and Ramos acted sane during the interview.
The conviction was not wrong because Jarrod Baron was guilty of the offenses and deserved the charges presented in court. Although there is not enough evidence concerning Baron’s insanity, Baron refuses to cooperate with medical experts. The decision to be made in December will provide whether the conviction will be wrongful. Placing Baron in a psychiatric mental facility is wrongful because Barron is accountable and aware of laws. Working in a government entity and living everyday life supports the fact that Baron is a sound man who knows what is right and wrong.
The insanity reports were enough; hence Jarrod may experience a jail sentence (Schildkraut, 2016). According to wrongful conviction requirements, a case is wrongfully convicted if the procedures used in acquiring evidence violate individual rights. The individual convicted is innocent of the charges factually. Based on the evidence, Baron is guilty of the five murder cases. Baron’s case has been interrupted by a coronavirus, postponing hearings. A date has not yet been provided, and extensive evidence and information are required that would prove that Ramos was not criminally responsible.
Cassell, P. G. (2018). Overstating America’s Wrongful Conviction Rate: Reassessing the Conventional Wisdom about the Prevalence of Wrongful Convictions. Ariz. L. Rev., 60, 815.
Kristensen, M. H., & Petersen, S. (2016). Choosing the appropriate sensitivity analysis method for building energy model-based investigations. Energy and Buildings, 130, 166-176.
Schildkraut, J. (2016). Mass murder and the mass media: Understanding the construction of the social problem of mass shootings in the US. Rockefeller Institute of Government.