In this case, John Marvin was accused of killing two police officers—Mathew Tokuoka and Anthony Wallace—at Hoonah, on 28 August 2010. Dr. Lois Michaud, a forensic psychologist, believed that Marvin was competent to go for the trial as he was simply non-committal whenever he was asked to give his version of the case. The authority who investigated the case was a firearms identification expert. He was able to examine a bullet as well as a cartridge, which were both fired (Smith and Ray 780). According to the expert, the two were fired from a rifle in the home of the defendant. Therefore, during the hearing, Robert J. Shem, who works at the State of Alaska crime lab, testified in court, and he said that he examined the bullet, and the cartridges, which including the bullet fragments. Robert said that the bullet and cartridge had been collected from the shooting scene. The bullets were obtained from the bodies of the two police officers (Emily 2).
The firearms examiner said that his tests were not conclusive, but the bullet and the cartridge that he had examined, showed that they had been fired from the rifle that the prosecutor said killed the two police officers. The firearms examiner added that the rifle was 7mm Browning automatic rifle, which further proved what the prosecutor had earlier stated. The District attorney, David Brower, examined the bullet and he said that it came from the same gun. David Brower compared the damaged bullet, obtained from the scene, with three live bullets obtained from the Rifle, which was being used as evidence. He made two shots on a metal box at a target of 50 feet away. This was done at the crime lab. He later compared, under a microscope, the markings with those on the damaged bullet. Thus, while holding the Browning that could not be opened, Shem noticed matching characteristics when compared with individual characteristics. The evidence proving this was strident marks observed at the two-evidence tests (Emily 3).
Marvin, as theorized by the state, had shot the two police officers through a window. He faced two counts of murder. In addition, he was on trial for weapons misconduct. If proven guilty, the 47 old man could be imprisoned for lifetime. The other person who was managing this case was Michelyn Manrique, Alaska State Trooper. He described to the jurors how the individuals conducting the investigations recreated the scene of crime to prove whether the bullet, indeed came from the suspect’s window. Michelyn testified under the examination of David Brower, the District Attorney, that one bullet went to Anthony Wallace vehicle at the scene, spoiling the passenger’s side bumper. The spoiled bumper portion was cut from the patrol vehicle and was presented as evidence to the jury. Shem admitted that he was not able to determine the type of gun that caused the damage (Emily 2).
Manrique told the jury that she used a piece of copper tubing on the vehicle’s bumper defect, several days after the shooting. She looked through it and what she saw lined up with the suspects second-story window. The expert added that she never conducted the test from other different angles. Initially, she had said that the results were precise exact, but when pressed hard by Hedland, she said that it was not as ‘precise’ as she had said earlier. However, her evidence was quite concrete. This witness also said that the investors were not sure of the angle at which the patrol vehicles were parked at the time of the shootings. This is because the vehicles had already been relocated to a different location. However, there was some memory from Haley Tokuoka, Mathew Tokuoka’s widow, who drove away after the first gun shot. The widow; however, was not present when her husband was being shot since she had been instructed, by her husband, to drive away. The widow testified in court, and she is the one who assisted the investigators in recreating the crime scene regarding how the vehicle had been parked.
With Manrique on the stand, the investigators found several other bullet holes, under cross-examination. Manrique stated to the jury that the investigators waited several days to spray the chemical that illuminates blood at the crime scene (Schultz and Tosha 406). He said that, if they had not waited, the evidence would have been sufficient, and that they would not rely on eyewitness memories. Manrique also said that Wallace’s vehicle that had blood on the side door was washed before she arrived in the state, 4 days after the shooting. She further said that there was no forensic testing done on blood and the body tissues that were on the passenger side-door of the vehicle. A candle light had been seen at the crime scene, and 90-100 people had visited the site for the vigil. Manrique told the jury that this should not have happened because it would have interfered with evidence. It was during the vigil that someone, Paul Johnson, Haley’s brother-in-law, discovered a bullet, picked it bare handed, and gave it to the investigating Trooper, Mark Granda (Emily 3).
Laser trajectory was also presented as evidence to show the flight paths, followed by the bullets (Bond 80). This was per the recreations. The laser trajectories were; however, not conducted from other houses nearby, and the standing locations were based on the eyewitness’ memories. There was contradictory evidence when Ganda and two investigators conducted investigations and failed to get the 7mm rifle. However, a week later, the Wildlife Trooper found the 7mm on the second-story window. The doctors who conducted the autopsy on the two killed officers confirmed that they died of gun wounds. For Tokuoka, he was shot on the chest whereas; Wallace was shot on his upper thigh and the shoulder blade. Seven fragments were obtained from Tokuoka’s body while other fragments from Wallace’s body. Wallace, the officer on duty, when he was killed had 0.019-blood alcohol content at the time of autopsy. This was according to the doctor, who was also a witness. However, toxicology reports did not show the alcohol content in Tokuoka’s blood. Fingerprints analyst said that fingerprints were not identifiable on the six guns obtained in Marvin’s house. DNA analyst did not get genetic profile for both guns, but she added that Marvin could not be ruled out regarding the other gun.
In conclusion, the forensic evidence collected was sufficient, and the methods used to analyze it relevant and effective. The use of DNA, analyzing bullets and cartridges, recreation of the scene, and the use of an eyewitness are highly effective during homicide investigations (Baskin, Deborah, and Sommers 1142). However, the witness is the killed officer’s wife, which gives room for doubt. In addition, the crowd of people at the crime scene was a huge error because they could have interfered with investigations. Again, the fact that, Haley’s brother-in-law held the bullet with bared hands, also interferes with the investigations; hence interfering with evidence. It was also not right to wash the vehicle that had blood and fresh fragments before all the investigators had collected evidence. Thus, following the presented evidence, I agree that John Marvin committed the murder of the two police officers.
Works cited
Baskin, Deborah, and Ira Sommers. "The Influence Of Forensic Evidence On The Case Outcomes Of Homicide Incidents." Journal of Criminal Justice 38.6 (2010): 1141-1149. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
Bond, John W. "The Value of Fingerprint Evidence in Detecting Crime." International Journal Of Police Science & Management 11.1 (2009): 77-84. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
EMILY RUSSO MILLER, Forensic evidence presented in John Marvin murder trial, JUNEAU EMPIRE, October 30, (2012): 1-4.
Smith, Lisa L., and Ray Bull. "Identifying And Measuring Juror Pre-Trial Bias For Forensic Evidence: Development And Validation Of The Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale." Psychology, Crime & Law 18.9 (2012): 797-815. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
Schultz, John J., and Tosha L. Dupras. "The Contribution Of Forensic Archaeology To Homicide Investigations." Homicide Studies 12.4 (2008): 399-413. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 Dec. 2012.
