Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Double jeopardy case study
Double jeopardy case study
5th amendment double jeopardy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Double jeopardy case study
Facts of the Case: In this case, the defendant, Esteban Martinez, was tried in the Illinois Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court for charges of aggravated assault and mob activity against two other men, Avery Binion and Demarco Scott. These charges were from 2006 and the original trial took place after the defendant posted bail. It was after the decision of the circuit court was made that the trial was taken to the Illinois Appellate Court, which then lead the case to be taken and reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The original trial date was in July of 2009, but the State was granted a continuance for the purpose of finding two witnesses. Over a span of almost a year the court had
…show more content…
They state that although jeopardy is usually attached when the jury is sworn there are precedents that state that rigid, mechanical rules should not decide when jeopardy attaches. Instead, they believe that double jeopardy only applies if the defendant was subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction. The Supreme Court decides that Martinez was never at risk of conviction, as the State chose not to participate in trial before the jury was sworn and since Martinez was not in jeopardy, the Court’s entry of not guilty did not count as a true acquittal. This decision by the Illinois Supreme Courts leads the cases to be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Separate Opinions of the Illinois Supreme Court:
Although the majority of the Illinois Supreme Court decided that Martinez was not being subjected to double jeopardy, Justice Burke from Illinois disagreed. She believes that the majority deciding that jury swearing was not significant in this case goes against the very well-established rule of double jeopardy that are found in the constitution. She goes on to argue that under the majority’s decision the State could get their way and fake a trial just by refusing to participate after the jury has been sworn.
Issue Presented in the
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
Holhan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). In Napue, the court had held that the same result occurs when the State although not soliciting false evidence allows it to go uncorrected when it appears. In Brady, the Supreme Court had held that irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution, suppression of material exculpatory evidence required a new trial.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
The case, Kansas v. Cheever, came about after Scott D. Cheever murdered Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19th, 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at the Cooper home in a rural part of Greenwood County, Kansas to execute a warrant for Scott Cheever’s arrest when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever was arrested, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder and was also charged with various other drug charges and criminal possession of firearms. Cheever was first on trial in federal court because it was a capital case and Kansas had just ruled Capital punishment unconstitutional and was under then under review. Cheever used a voluntary intoxication defense claiming he was so high on methamphetamines he could not have premeditated the murder. In return the court ordered a mental...
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
...hrough or not, they were dealing with a similar case in which the suspect won with 5 of 9 justices agreeing. The Arizona courts denied Miranda’s appeal so he remained in jail. His last chance appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he could not afford the $100 fee needed to do so. He sent in the papers only to have them returned because of improper papers. He resent it without the money to see if the supreme court would listen to his petition. While waiting for a response from the Supreme Court, Miranda was joined by JJ FF and FF NN. Frank’s strong point was the U.S. Constitution and NN’s was criminal law. Many Months had passed until the Supreme Court responded and the lawyers worked on the brief during this time. Towards the end of February of 1966, the legal group in which represented Miranda appeared before the supreme court to make their spoken arguments.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Batson. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable to consider the state’s case ag...
In this first case Paton and Thomas vs. Supreme Court these two men were arrested for murder of Christopher Mc Crory. Morris Paton was 30 and Eugene Thomas was 33 this man was arrested for killing Christopher Mc Crory who was only 19. This case happened in New Orleans they were arrested December 23, 2001. At first the charges was capital murder which means they would have got the death penalty if convicted .The Cannizzaro's office knocked the charges down to second-degree murder, which carries mandatory life in prison upon conviction. These two men sat in jail for almost nine years waiting on a trial in 2001. Kathryn Sheely which is Paton’s lawyer says "The 8 1/2 year delay in this case has meant that justice can't be served," Sheely said Monday. "...
It was later decided that even though Lujan’s Miranda rights were violated, it was a harmless error due to the fact that he confessed in court to the murders. “However, the state court reached this decision by failing to apply the Supreme Court 's holding in Harrison v. United States” (McMahon, 2013). The case finally ended when the Ninth Circuit applied what was taken from Douglas v. Jacquez and modified the conviction. “The district court may provide the state court with the option to modify the conviction, but the district court erred in concluding second-degree murder was the appropriate modification” (McMahon, 2013). The case of Lujan v. Garcia was one where a man’s Miranda rights were violated due to an inadequate reading of the warnings which changed the outcome of the case. In conclusion, Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) case is a prominent case in history that resulted in rights that are still used today. The Miranda rights are a part of the core of the current United States criminal justice system. They have a huge influence on the way police officers and other law enforcement workers operate with regards to custodies and interrogations. Despite the Miranda rights being so important, there are still times in which someone’s Miranda rights can be violated such as during the Lujan v. Garcia case. A violation of the Miranda rights can change the outcome of a court case. The rights given during the Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436 [1966]) as a result of the case are what has had a great influence on the criminal justice system
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
Following the arrest on January 8th of 1992 the trial began August 18, 1992. The state had two factors that played a part in trial. One being Johnny Everett Webb a fellow inmate, with Cameron Willingham in Navarro County Jail. The second major factor being testimonies from investigators Vasquez and Frogg on what they believed happened that night. The prosecutors believed that Cameron willingly tried to murder his children by setting his home on fire. Cameron Willingham never changed his story and always seemed to be innocent. Willingham was found guilty on the grounds of the testimony that the forensic experts gave at court because a former inm...
The jury in trying to let the defendant go considered if there were any circumstances that would provide say as a self-defense claim to justify this horrific crime of murder of two people named Mr. Stephan Swan and Mr. Mathew Butler. Throughout the guilt/innocent phase, the jury believes not to have heard convincing evidence the victims were a threat to the defendant nor a sign the defendant was in fear for his life before he took the victims’ lives.
On January 27, 1964, the court released her upon recommendation of two doctors appointed by the probate court to examine her. She filed law suits for false imprisonment, assault and battery and malpractice against Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk and Ardmore Acres. The court dismissed case on Smyk and Ardmore (115, 497, & 924, 1969) and (Swainson, n.d.).
“The trial was brought to a speedy conclusion. Not only did Judge Evans find the twelve guilty, fine them $100 each, and committed them to jail, but five people in the courtroom who had served as witnesses for the defense arrested. […] The police were then instructed to transfer the seventeen prisoners that night to the county jail”(30).