| Murder on Middle Beach | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Genre | True Crime |
| Directed by | Madison Hamburg |
| Opening theme | Fellwalker |
| Composer | James Lavino |
| Country of origin | United States |
| No. of seasons | 1 |
| No. of episodes | 4 |
| Original release | |
| Network | HBO |
| Release | November 15 – December 6, 2020 |
Murder on Middle Beach is a four-part documentary by director Madison Hamburg about the unsolved 2010 murder of his mother Barbara Hamburg. It premiered on November 15, 2020, on HBO. [1]
The documentary series began as a student film while Hamburg was in college. [2]
| No. | Title | Original air date | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "Mom's Dead" | November 15, 2020 | |
| Director Madison Hamburg visits his hometown of Madison, Connecticut and learns more details about his mother's life, and his parents' divorce. | |||
| 2 | "Tables and Rooms" | November 22, 2020 | |
| Madison examines his mother and aunt's involvement in the "Gifting Tables" pyramid scheme. | |||
| 3 | "Sisters" | November 29, 2020 | |
| Barbara's sister Conway accuses Barbara's daughter Ali of the murder. | |||
| 4 | "Reasonable Doubts" | December 6, 2020 | |
| Nearing the 10-year anniversary of his mother's murder, Madison fights to gain access to the police files on the case. | |||
Ashlie Stevens of Salon remarked that the documentary differed from typical true crime documentaries in its personal story telling, writing "'Murder on Middle Beach' adds to the genre as well. It doesn't have a tidy ending, but grief rarely does. Filmmakers could learn a lot from how Madison Hamburg focuses on the emotional ripple effects of crime, and the very human toll that loss takes on a family and community." [2]
Brian Tallerico of RogerEbert.com also remarked on the series' personal nature, stating "The greatest accomplishment of 'Murder on Middle Beach' is how connected I felt to this story by its end, concerned about an entire family torn apart because of one brutal day, in March over a decade ago." [3]
In 2020 Anike Niemeyer, who helped produce the documentary, filed a complaint to the Freedom of Information Commission to request the case files on the murder. Madison Police Department contested the complaint, claiming they were close to solving the case and had a suspect. The Freedom of Information Commission ruled in Niemeyer's favour and Niemeyer was given two boxes of records related to the case.
Upon going through the files Niemeyer claimed that not all the files had been released, and Madison Police Department refused to release any further files. Madison Police Department appealed the Freedom of Information Commission's decision through the courts. The Superior Court upheld the decision, and it escalated to the Supreme Court. [4]
The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement needed to show that there was a reasonable possibility of future action. A case's files could not be kept closed due to law enforcement having a suspect, or the case file being kept open. [5]
In the United States, the Miranda warning is a type of notification customarily given by police to criminal suspects in police custody advising them of their right to silence and, in effect, protection from self-incrimination; that is, their right to refuse to answer questions or provide information to law enforcement or other officials. Named for the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, these rights are often referred to as Miranda rights. The purpose of such notification is to preserve the admissibility of their statements made during custodial interrogation in later criminal proceedings. The idea came from law professor Yale Kamisar, who subsequently was dubbed "the father of Miranda."
Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Court bail may be offered to secure the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that it is constitutional for American police to "stop and frisk" a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime. Specifically, the decision held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures when questioning someone even though the officer lacks probable cause to arrest the person, so long as the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The court also ruled that the police officer may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is "armed and presently dangerous." This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts," and not merely upon an officer's hunch.
In criminal procedure law of the United States, an exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, allows them to enter without knocking and waiting for the owner's permission to enter. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect's escape is imminent. Once entry is obtained, the plain view doctrine applies, allowing the seizure of any evidence or contraband discovered in the course of actions consequent upon the exigent circumstances.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murders of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. The decision has since become infamous and condemned by several human rights groups.
Cops is an American reality legal television documentary programming series that is currently in its 36th season. It is produced by Langley Productions and premiered on the Fox network on March 11, 1989. The series, known for chronicling the lives of law enforcement officials, follows police officers and sheriff's deputies, sometimes backed up by state police or other state agencies, during patrol, calls for service, and other police activities including prostitution and narcotic stings, and occasionally the serving of search/arrest warrants at criminal residences. Some episodes have also featured federal agencies. The show's formula follows the cinéma vérité convention, which does not consist of any narration, scripted dialogue or incidental music/added sound effects, depending entirely on the commentary of the officers and on the actions of the people with whom they come into contact, giving the audience a fly on the wall point of view. Each episode typically consists of three self-contained segments which often end with one or more arrests.
The legal system of South Korea is a civil law system that has its basis in the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Court Organization Act, which was passed into law on 26 September 1949, officially created a three-tiered, independent judicial system. The revised Constitution of 1987 codified judicial independence in Article 103, which states that, "Judges rule independently according to their conscience and in conformity with the Constitution and the law." The 1987 rewrite also established the Constitutional Court, the first time that South Korea had an active body for constitutional review.
Yeduguri Sandinti Vivekananda Reddy was a member of the 14th Lok Sabha of India. He represented the Kadapa constituency of Andhra Pradesh. He was a member of the Indian National Congress. He was brutally hacked with an axe to death at his residence in Pulivendula, Kadapa district on 15 March 2019.
Police accountability involves holding both individual police officers, as well as law enforcement agencies responsible for effectively delivering basic services of crime control and maintaining order, while treating individuals fairly and within the bounds of law. Police are expected to uphold laws, regarding due process, search and seizure, arrests, discrimination, as well as other laws relating to equal employment, sexual harassment, etc. Holding police accountable is important for maintaining the public's "faith in the system". Research has shown that the public prefers independent review of complaints against law enforcement, rather than relying on police departments to conduct internal investigations. There is a suggestion that such oversight would improve the public's view on the way in which police officers are held accountable.
Human rights in Austria are generally respected by the government; however, there were problems in some areas. There were some reports of police abuse and use of unjustified force against prisoners. Antisemitic incidents, including physical attacks, name-calling, property damage, and threatening letters, telephone calls, and Internet postings occurred during the year. There was some governmental and societal discrimination against fathers, Muslims and members of unrecognized religious groups, particularly those considered "sects". There were incidents of neo-Nazi activity, rightwing extremism, and xenophobia. Trafficking in women and children for prostitution and labor also remained a problem.
The history of human rights in Argentina is affected by the Dirty War and its aftermath. The Dirty War, a civic-military dictatorship comprising state-sponsored violence against Argentine citizenry from roughly 1976 to 1983, carried out primarily by Jorge Rafael Videla's military government. However, the human rights situation in Argentina has improved since.
J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that age and mental status is relevant when determining police custody for Miranda purposes, overturning its prior ruling from seven years before. J. D. B. was a 13-year-old student enrolled in special education classes whom police had suspected of committing two robberies. A police investigator visited J. D. B. at school, where he was interrogated by the investigator, a uniformed police officer, and school officials. J. D. B. subsequently confessed to his crimes and was convicted. J. D. B. was not given a Miranda warning during the interrogation, nor an opportunity to contact his legal guardian.
The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, officially recorded as Republic Act No. 10175, is a law in the Philippines that was approved on September 12, 2012. It aims to address legal issues concerning online interactions and the Internet in the Philippines. Among the cybercrime offenses included in the bill are cybersquatting, cybersex, child pornography, identity theft, illegal access to data and libel.
Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.
Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when police officers may make arrests or conduct temporary detentions based on information provided by anonymous tips. In 2008, police in California received a 911 call that a pickup truck was driving recklessly along a rural highway. Officers spotted a truck matching the description provided in the 911 call and followed the truck for five minutes, but did not observe any suspicious behavior. Nevertheless, officers conducted a traffic stop and discovered 30 pounds (14 kg) of marijuana in the truck. At trial, the occupants of the car argued that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, because the tip was unreliable, and officers did not personally observe criminal activity. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas held that the 911 call was reliable, and that officers need not personally observe criminal activity when acting upon information provided by an anonymous 911 call.
The use of stingrays by United States law enforcement is an investigative technique used by both federal and local law enforcement in the United States to obtain information from cell phones by mimicking a cell phone tower. The devices which accomplish this are generically known as IMSI-catchers, but are commonly called stingrays, a brand sold by the Harris Corporation.
Nandini Sundar is an Indian professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics whose research interests include political sociology, law, and inequality. She is a recipient of the Infosys Prize for Social Sciences in 2010. She was also awarded the Ester Boserup Prize for Development Research in 2016 and the Malcolm Adiseshiah Award for Distinguished Contributions to Development Studies in 2017.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the mere existence of probable cause for an arrest did not bar the plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim, but deferred consideration of the broader question of when it might. The case concerned a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit filed against Riviera Beach by Fane Lozman, who had been arrested while criticizing local politicians during the public comments section of a City Council meeting. The city argued that under Hartman v. Moore he could not sue for retaliation, as they had probable cause to arrest him for the offense of disturbing a lawful assembly. Lozman conceded that they had probable cause, but argued that Hartman, a case about retaliatory prosecutions, did not extend to retaliatory arrests, and that instead Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle allowed his suit.
Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez is a 2020 American true crime documentary series about convicted murderer and former professional American football player Aaron Hernandez. The three-part documentary explores his conviction for the murder of Odin Lloyd, other murder cases in which he was a suspect, and the factors in his life that shaped his behavior. It premiered on Netflix on January 15, 2020.