1

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Anthony Uvon Starks

Name

Institution

Course

Instructor

Date
 2

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Anthony Uvon Starks

Summary of Facts

Tarsha Eaddy went to see her mom, Edna Pinder, at the King's Inn Motel in York

County, Pennsylvania, on October 25. Eaddy was worried since Pinder had not spoken to

anybody in days. Eaddy entered her mother's apartment and found Pinder's corpse in a condition

that made it clear that she had passed away. Dr Rameen Starling-Roney performed an autopsy on

Pinder and concluded that the cause of death was numerous sharp force injuries, making it clear

that Pinder's death resulted from a murder.

The King's Inn Motel videotape was also crucial since it showed that no one other than

the victim and the investigator investigating the case visited her unit during the time in question.

This also supports the idea that Starks committed the crime since he had access to the victim's

residence. Tarsha Eaddy and Amber Kress were among the witnesses who supplied critical

testimony that further implicated Starks. Kress's remembrance of cries coming from Pinder's

apartment days earlier referred to a history of probable violence between the victim and Starks.

Eaddy's description of her mother's condition and the missing mobile phone spoke toward a

criminal act. Surveillance video and Josh Seiple's testimony corroborated the evidence that

Starks was involved in the sale of Pinder's mobile phone, which had been missing from the site

of the murder.

Procedural History:

Anthony Uvon Starks was tried and found guilty of first and second-degree murder in the

Court of Common Pleas of York County. After hearing the judgment, Starks appealed to get his

conviction overturned. After the trial concluded, the appellant took their case to the Pennsylvania
 3

Superior Court, where a three-judge panel reviewed the trial's evidence, legal arguments, and

outstanding questions.

The evidence used to secure Starks' conviction painted a convincing picture of a tragic

chain of events that unfolded in October 2018 at the King's Inn Motel. Dr Rameen Starling-

Roney's grim conclusion that Tarsha Eaddy's mother had been murdered when she found her

corpse offered a bleak picture. Starks's involvement in the crime was strongly suggested by

surveillance tape showing that only the victim and the investigating detective had entered her flat

during the relevant period.

The testimony of witnesses like Eaddy and Amber Kress greatly strengthened the

prosecution's case. After hearing Eaddy describe her mother's dead body and the disappearance

of her mobile phone, everyone became suspicious. Kress's testimony suggested a history of

violence between Starks and the victim, that she had heard cries coming from the victim's

apartment in the days before her discovery. Surveillance evidence verified Josh Seiple's

statement that Starks sold the victim's mobile phone to a pawn shop, significantly strengthening

the case against Starks. The prosecution's case was bolstered by further evidence, such as the fact

that Starks was discovered driving the victim's vehicle by the recovery of potentially

incriminating materials from the automobile and by the discovery of two credit cards in the

victim's name in Starks's possession at the time of his arrest.

Legal issues

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Anthony Uvon Starks, two main points are in

question in law. The primary issue is whether or not Starks was proven guilty of first- and

second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence given. The second part
 4

of the report investigates potential breaches of Starks' constitutional rights during his arrest and

prosecution.

One aspect of this problem is figuring out whether Starks should be found guilty of first

and second-degree murder based on the evidence provided at his trial. The prosecution is

burdened to prove the defendant guilty in a criminal proceeding. A thorough evaluation of all

evidence, from eyewitness statements and surveillance film to forensic evidence and supporting

narratives, is required due to the high burden of proof. Given the gravity of the accusations, the

court must determine whether the evidence is sufficient to prove Starks' guilt.

The second facet of this problem is the possibility that Starks' constitutional rights were

violated during his detention and prosecution. The right to due process is a cornerstone of a fair

and just judicial system, among other fundamental constitutional rights. It would have far-

reaching implications for the validity and fairness of the processes if it were determined that

Stark's constitutional rights were violated at any stage during his detention or prosecution

(Holland & Beckman, 2020). The court must conduct a thorough investigation to ascertain

whether or not any such breaches happened and, if so, to identify the extent to which they

affected the case.

These fundamental concerns of law are at the heart of the case before the court in

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Anthony Uvon Starks. The case's conclusion, the defendant,

and the law hinge on the resolution of these questions.

Rules:

In Pennsylvania, the burden of proof for murder charges of either the first or second

degree rests on the prosecution. Taking another person's property without their permission and
 5

moving it without their knowledge or agreement to deprive them of it permanently is considered

theft.

Application:

The court has to decide whether there is enough proof of Starks' culpability to reach a

guilty verdict. To do so, it is necessary to carefully examine all of the trial's evidence. Witness

statements, security video, forensic evidence, and an autopsy performed by Dr. Rameen Starling-

Roney are all part of the case (Holland & Beckman, 2020). The court must decide whether there

is sufficient evidence to convict Starks of Edna Pinder's murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court must look at whether Starks' constitutional rights were violated during his

arrest and trial and weigh the evidence of guilt. This part entails checking if Starks' constitutional

rights, such as due process and protection against self-incrimination, were respected by law

enforcement and the court system.

Conclusion

The court has reviewed the evidence and applicable laws and has decided to uphold

Anthony Uvon Starks' conviction for first and second-degree murder. There is sufficient

evidence to condemn the defendant beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is also no proof that

fundamental rights were violated during the arrest or prosecution. Sufficient evidence was

presented at trial, and the court's judgment is consistent with precedent.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions:

In this instance, neither a majority nor a minority agreed.

Reflection:

The court's reasoning and decision make sense and are consistent with precedent. Beyond a

shadow of a doubt, Starks is guilty based on the evidence produced at trial, which includes
 6

witness testimony, surveillance video, and a forensic investigation of the victim's cause of death.

The high standard of evidence necessary in instances of first and second-degree murder is

reflected in the court's decision to uphold the conviction.

In addition, the court must investigate any possible breaches of the defendant's constitutional

rights to guarantee that their rights are upheld at all times. The court found no proof of any such

infractions here. Thus, the arrest and trial were conducted by legal norms. This is a strong

statement in favour of the sanctity of the law's commitment to fairness and justice. Therefore, I

concur with the court's analysis and verdict. The arrest and trial followed the rules of justice and

due process since the evidence was carefully examined, and it was determined that no

constitutional rights were infringed.

 7

Reference

Holland, N. I., & Beckman, J. C. (2020). Pennsylvania. ONE J, pp. 6, 243.

https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/onej6&section=30