Directions use this google doc to write your amicus brief.

Turn into classroom: 100 points - see

assignment for details on what should be included.

My name is Mariana Rodriguez apart of the Attorney at law, Criminal Bar Association, and we
are hear to prove that the rights of Dwight Dexter were not upheld in the criminal justice
system. There were countless violations of my clients rights being violated; an immense
amount more than he had upheld. Today we are going to focus on the constitutional
amendments and a Supreme Court precedent which proves the rights of Dwight Dexter were
not upheld.

A statement in court is one is “innocent until proven guilty”, but in dwight’s case he’s been
guilty since Floyd Babb was pronounced dead. According to “The Notes from Sherrif Dodd” he
paid past informant Morgan Livingston $200 to help find the murder weapon. Livingston
called Sherriff Dodd and told him “Dexter agreed to drive Livingston to Detroit to buy a gun
from his friend Randolph Stone.” Not only does he pay someone off to frame Dwight, but he
also violates his 4th amendment right as Sheriff dodd stated “I pulled the car over and
searched it (I didn’t have time to get a search warrant). I found a .22 caliber pistol in the car,
but not the .25 caliber gun used in the murder.” In this statement Sheriff Dodd admittably
states that he searched his car for the murder weapon WITHOUT a search warrant so whatever
was found would not be able to be used. That doesn’t even have to be taken into consideration
though, because they didn’t find a match of a murder weapon in his car. However he still “took
Dexter back to the station with another officer” trying to prosecute him of a crime they had no
evidence to prove was him; basing all of this on speculations. Since he found no dirt on Dexter
after this illegal search and seizure, he drove to Randolph Stone’s house and threatend stone
that he would “Would see to it that he was imprisoned for the rest of his life.” Which leads me
to my next constitutional amendment that was not upheld: his sixth amendment.

Although Mr. Dexter was read his Miranda rights and had 2 phone calls, what does this help
with if there was no one willing to listen to his side of the story. What are the appeals to hear
his case worth if in the end it’s just filling him with false hope that he’s not gonna die. The 6th
ammendment grants one the right to an attorney, and a fair, speedy, and public trial by an
impartial jury; which is far from what happened in Dwight’s case. The jury was as partial as it
could get being an all white jury, and almost all of the African American’s that were exempted
was for no reason. One struck for “Answering in a defiant way”, another because they were
“hesitant to impose death penalty”, and another because they were “not strong on death
penalty.” All jurors that looked like dwight (skin), or could possibly feel/look dwights way was
struck from the jury. This jury does not enhance the definition of impartial. Dwight’s sixth
amendment was then violated again as his “Defense attorney” didn’t even try to defend him.
He tells the judge “ that he has not been to the crime scene, or viewed the crime scene
photographs, or seen the ballistics report.” Dexter may have gotten his “right to an attorney”,
but why even have one, when he put his life into his hands and he could’ve cared less about it?
His 6th amendment was then violated one last time as we found out in the “High Court to Hear
Dexter Case”. Randolph stone admitted in 1999 he falsely testified at Dexter’s trial. Stone
stated that Dexter “was on foot and without a weapon; furthermore, he did not confess to any
crime”. As previously said by Sherriff Dodd, the confession was the information “we need to
charge Dwight Dexter in the murder of Floyd Babb.” With the admittion Stone gave, Dwight
shouldn’tve been detained to beign with. Defense attorney’s also “recovered a lengthy
transcript of a pretrial rehearsal meeting with Stone, during which Stone was repeatedly
coached.” With all of this evidence presented, was the 6th amendment of Dwight Dexter really
upheld? If you say yes, let’s look at one of these Supreme Court precedents similar to Mr.
Dexter’s case.

In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of peremptory
challenges to exclude potential jurors based solely on their race violates the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that prosecutors cannot use their right to
challenge potential jurors without providing a non-discriminatory reason for doing so. Dwight
Dexter's case could relate to Batson v. Kentucky if there were allegations that the prosecution
or defense used peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on their race. If
Dexter's case involved such allegations, his defense might argue that the prosecution's actions
violated his constitutional rights as established in Batson v. Kentucky. Adding on to that, both
of their 6th amendments, were violated.

In conclusion, Dwight didn’t have an impartial jury, non-tampered/truthful evidence, or an

attorney to try to defend him and look into his case. The only reason he was brought into the
station was because of Sheriff Dodd paying an informant to frame him, and an illegal search
and seizure. The rights of Dwight Dexter were NO WHERE NEAR upheld in the criminal
justice system, and was prosecuted solely off of speculation and accusations.

Respectfully submitted, Mariana Rodriguez

Attorney at Law, Criminal Bar Association