Convicting Keith Cook, the Right Decision The mock re-trial held in class provide a unique perspective and allowed many of us to reassesses our personal views about the 1998 California court case over the death of Jadine Russell. Keith Cook a mechanic hit and killed Mrs. Russell and injured several others while driving under the influence of alcohol and was subsequently tried for murder under the 1983 California “Watson Law” which allows for a charge of murder instead of manslaughter if the defendant has a previous DUI conviction and has signed documentation acknowledging the risks of again driving while intoxicated. Jadine Russell was severely injured and bleeding internally but refused blood transfusions due to the fact she was a Jehovah …show more content…
This flagrant disregard for both the law and others safety demonstrates how Keith Cook was and should have been held accountable for his choices. Numerous individuals at the party where Mr. Cook became intoxicated tried to help him home safety to no avail. His blood alcohol content was more than twice the level required to convict him for DUI. Without question, Jading Russell was definitely in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, her decision to refuse potentially lifesaving transfusions believed to be perfectly acceptable by the defendant and his attorneys does not meet the standard of contributory negligence in a situation wholly caused by the defendant’s negligence. This type of defense would appear to be rationalized by the statement” if you don’t like the way I drive stay off of the sidewalk”! This is a social concept first postulated by David Matza and Gresham Sykes during their work on Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association in the 1950’s which seems to have gained acceptance some social acceptance in the last few years. To quote Wikipedia, techniques of neutralization are a theoretical series of methods by which those who commit illegitimate acts temporarily neutralize certain values within themselves which would normally prohibit them from carrying out such acts, such as morality, obligation to abide by the law, and so on. In simpler terms, it is a psychological method for people to turn off “inner protests” when they do, or are about to do something they themselves perceive as wrong”. Is this the sole reason the jury convicted Keith Cook? Hardly! This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution in Europe and thus the Bill of Right’s first statement is the declaration of religious
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
Ben E. Keith Foods does not manufacture or assemble any of the products they sell. They work directly with many manufacturers and, in some cases brokers, to procure the products they offer to their customers. They are considered to be distributors and operate in a break bulk fashion. Ben E. Keith places orders for individual products in large quantities, often full truck loads, and the warehouse is stocked according to inventory thresholds set for each product based on weekly demand. When orders are received, the products requested by each customer are pulled by warehouse personnel, in the quantities requested, and combined into shipments of mixed product to be delivered to each customer.
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Roger A. Kooney is a 27 year old African American male that hit and killed 34 year old Chris Pariano. Allowing more prosecuting evidence of a criminal offender, Kooney has had 8 previous police encounters for drinking and driving and 19 other serious vehicular offences. Following his arrest, Roger Kooney was charged with alleged DWI, vehicular homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless endangerment. After the trial, the jury decided on a verdict of guilty. Roger Kooney should remain Detained and in police custody and bail would be set at 1 million dollars. The charges according to citizens and public officials were given accordingly and fair. Roger Kooney was a criminal weather it was accidental or not. There were no public objections
The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the crimes for which he was charged for. Therefore, much of the public was simply dumbfounded when Simpson was acquitted. Dershowitz attempts to explain why the jury acquitted Simpson by examining the entire American criminal justice system as a whole.
Over the past few years there has been increased scrutiny on the use of the insanity defense. Some of the more notable cases are those of Chris Kyle's murderer, Eddie Ray Roth, and the Colorado theatre murderer James Holmes. Interestingly enough it seems that perhaps these two cases would have been vastly different had it not been for the backlash to the results of the Hinckley trial. These two cases are used as comparison only because of the notoriety and the amount of media coverage associated with them i.e., they are more in the public view than others. These may not be the best examples but, they do show the general pattern of insanity defense cases results that could have been vastly different had there not been backlash and subsequent
In May 2000 a fifteen-year-old black male was picked up by police in Jacksonville, Florida and eventually charged with the murder of Mary Ann Stephens. His name was Brenton Butler and the documentary Murder on a Sunday Morning covered his trial. Thankfully he was acquitted, but it’s easy to see how close he was to going to prison for a crime he didn’t commit. It is commonly estimated that between 2-5% of all prison inmates are innocent. Brenton could have joined them because of the failure of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Department to administer justice. There were multiple psychological factors that led Brenton Butler to falsely confess to and be charged with the murder. The only witness to the crime, the victim’s husband, was blinded by weapon
Since Kirk Bloodsworth was released, he has become an activist, speaker and supporter of the Innocence Protection Act (IPA) after it was passed in February of 2000. Bloodsworth is also the Advocacy Director of Witness to Innocence which will be the subject of a documentary which is involved in the appeal to the revoking of Maryland’s death penalty.
Dating back to 1923, Judge Learned Hand said that the American judicial system “has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted” (Jones, 2010). Wrongful convictions weren’t really the center of attention until a professor from Yale University published a book called Convicting the Innocent in 1932. This book shined light on 65 cases, pointed out legal reasons and presented ideas to bring upon reform.
Kenneth Kirk, PC is a law firm that is located in Anchorage, Alaska. Kenneth Kirk, PC serves clients in the entire Southcentral Alaska. Their practice areas include estate planning, advanced healthcare directives, living trusts, and IRA conduit trusts. Their estate planning services include last will and testament, power of attorney, advance health care directive, beneficiary designations and joint ownership, and more. Kenneth Kirk, PC offers a free consultation.
The case study on Kevin Miller is very challenging. Kevin Miller is White 5th grade student, and his parent are very supportive. Kevin has a problem with attention span; consequently, he I has been identified as a candidate for Greentree Elementary School Gifted and Talented Program. I will attempt to describe the issues related to Kevin’s moral judgement and self-concept; furthermore, I will make recommendations on his part.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
This case was about a father by the name of Bob Latimer, this man had a daughter who was suffering with a disease called cerebral palsy. The disease was unfortunately entrenched with his daughter since her birth and was caused by brain damage. The disease made her immobile with the exception of the rare movements she showed through facial expressions or head movements. Twelve year old Tracey Latimer was in continuous pain every moment of her life and she was incapable of taking care of herself despite her age. She was bedridden and could not communicate with anyone in her family; she was more like a living corpse. Hoping only to better her condition, her family took her through several surgeries where some were successful but did not really benefit her in any way. Tracey had five to six seizures everyday and her condition would only get worse. All this was unbearable to her father Mr. Latimer like it would be to any loving father and it was then that he decided to end her pain and suffering. Latimer put Tracey into the cab of his truck and suffocated her. He did this by attaching a pipeline into the exhaust of the cab and this allowed carbon monoxide to enter the car which eventually leads to the painless death of his daughter. He was first convicted in 1994 of second degree murder with a life sentence term of 25 years and without parole for 10 years. Latimer then appealed his case to the Supreme Court and the previous decision was upheld. However, there was an error found in the procedure of the trial as some of the jury members were questioned on their beliefs in relation to the crime on the basis of religion, mercy killings, and etc. which then constituted the trial as unfair und...
...Available By: Acker, James. Contemporary Justice Review, Sep2008, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p287-289, 3p; DOI: 10.1080/10282580802295625