Cristabellac Case Study
Considering all the information provided I believe the appellant should be sentenced and charged.
It is understandable that when one is involved in a case that can lead to time in jail, when it is the appellants turn to talk, the appellant might say the wrong thing at the wrong time. It is known that at one point the appellant had said, he had never driven the green Cadillac that belongs to cristabel pierce. However, on page three paragraph nine evidence shows that the appellant was seen driving the green Cadillac. This shows that the appellants purpose of lying was truly to not seem guilty, and to not be incriminated by his actions. The green Cadillac that the appellant was seen driving that day belonged to Cristabel pierce, the mother of his kids. It is not a coincidence that all of the stolen property was found in cristabels house, where the green Cadillac was parked, Hernandez, who lived across the street also testified on page sixteen paragraph thirteen, that he had asked the appellant what he was doing and he replied by saying he was helping Bernadette move her things, that she knew he was there. Which is not true. Therefore, all of those incidents that prove the appellant is not speaking the truth, make him not only loose credibility but makes him seem more guilty.
If a person …show more content…
Because of this piece of paper Lenaris followed the green Cadillac who had the same license plate number that was on the piece of paper handed to him. Once he did this, he stopped at cristabels house. The only reason this piece of paper might of helped is because it connected the appellant with the green Cadillac once again, and it linked him to the house where the stolen property was found. This piece of evidence, although it might have helped, it was not sufficient enough to roof the appellant committed a
It is understandable that when one is involved in a case that can lead to time in jail, when it is the appellants turn to talk, the appellant might say the wrong thing at the wrong time. It is known that at one point the appellant had said, he had never driven the green Cadillac that belongs to cristabel pierce. However, on page three paragraph nine evidence shows that the appellant was seen driving the green Cadillac. This shows that the appellants purpose of lying was truly to not seem guilty, and to not be incriminated by his actions. The green Cadillac that the appellant was seen driving that day belonged to Cristabel pierce, the mother of his kids. It is not a coincidence that all of the stolen property was found in cristabels house, where the green Cadillac was parked, Hernandez, who lived across the street also testified on page sixteen paragraph thirteen, that he had asked the appellant what he was doing and he replied by saying he was helping Bernadette move her things, that she knew he was there. Which is not true. Therefore, all of those incidents that prove the appellant is not speaking the truth, make him not only loose credibility but makes him seem more guilty.
If a person …show more content…
Because of this piece of paper Lenaris followed the green Cadillac who had the same license plate number that was on the piece of paper handed to him. Once he did this, he stopped at cristabels house. The only reason this piece of paper might of helped is because it connected the appellant with the green Cadillac once again, and it linked him to the house where the stolen property was found. This piece of evidence, although it might have helped, it was not sufficient enough to roof the appellant committed a