The state of Tennessee versus Marlon Duane Kisser

Introduction

The state of Tennessee versus Marlon Duane Kisser was a murder charge against Duane for the premeditated murder of a law enforcement officer belonging to the Hamilton County Sherrif department. In the case, Duane was found guilty of shooting Hamilton County Deputy Sheriff Duane Bond. A collection of physical evidence was submitted in both the initial case and the one at the appellate judge. The first piece of evidence was fibers from Bond’s clothing being traced back to Kaiser, corroborating the fact that the suspect was present ant the day of Bond’s killing. The defendant was also found to have in his possession a similar weapon to the one that was used to kill the deputy sheriff. Gunshot residue was also found on the defendant’s hands in amounts enough to assert that the defendant had used a gun.

Shoe racks, though partially eroded, matched the boots that were found under the deck. Biometric features and residues from the defendant’s hair and DNA of the defendants were found at the scene. The defendants DNA was also found on the gasoline container. With gasoline traces being located on the defendant’s clothing it was proved that the defendants at least took part in the arson of the fruit shop around the area the victim was patrolling in.

Specialized Testimony

Several testifiers solidified the case against the defendant. Dr.Kessler from the medical examiner’s office testified that the gunshots inflicted on the victim severe damage to the internal organs and large blood vessels and shattered some of his bones. From his assessments, he concluded that the shots must have been fired by a high powered rifle. Further indicating the defendant’s weapon, since physical evidence already confirmed his use of a gun. Dr kisser is a medical officer with specialisation in human anatomy.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation lab specialist testified that fibre found inside the victim’s police car matched that of the pants the defendant had thrown in the back of the porch of the house where the defendant was arrested. This evidence helped build an image as to how the defendant was clothed during the night of the murder and also Further prove that indeed the defendant was at the scene of the crime.

A ballistic agent from the Tennessee ballistics institute testified that the fibres vacuumed up form the driver’s side of the victim’s patrol car matched the fabric on the clothed worn by the defendants on the night of Bond’s murder. This is by far the most damning evidence as it proved that the defendant was at the scene of the crime, therefore working with the physical evidence to further prove that indeed he is the one who shot the deputy sheriff die to the gun residue, the matching boots and the rifle in his possession.

Get a brand-new guide on essay writing

Everything you need to get A+ this semester!

Get it

By continuing, you agree to the Terms And conditions and Privacy policy

The download will start within seconds. Good luck!

Download

The most Damaging Testimony

The agent Laura Hodge had the most damaging testimony to the defence. She proved that the defendant was at the scene of the crime at the point which Bond was killed. Such evidence, taken into account with the physical evidence about gun residue and the gunshot wounds on the victim proved that the victim was indeed shot by the defendant. All the law enforcement agents had similar accounts that proved motive. It is therefore difficult to establish which agent had the most damaging as all evidence from the testimony is circumstantial.

The Crime Scenes

The primary crime scene is the scene where the deputy sheriff was murdered. This area is where most of the evidence was collected and examined. It is this view that that most of the leads were found. The secondary scene is at the suspects house and the fruit shop that was torched down in an arson attack. The two secondary scenes match evidence and information found on the first scene.

Court Statement

Spoliation is the intentional deletion, alteration or corruption of evidence relevant to a given case. Physica; data is particularly susceptible to destruction because digital and electronic devices are usually at custody of one of the concerned parties in a particular instance. For example, the investigation of a corruption case that depends on specific details of a gunshot may find it difficult to acquire such data after by the suspect, sanitize the crime scene or themselves or any other involved parties (Schneck, 2011). Such type of data may not be available from the service vendors due to privacy laws and policy.

Principle of Ruling

The court used those terms as it had been proven by both forensic, physical and circumstantial data that the defendant had committed the alleged crime.