Over the course of this reporting year Janine’s performance has been outstanding. Janine continues to handle three of the Unit’s largest active federal criminal cases. The USAO continues to allow Janine wide discretion to set the investigative direction of her cases with little oversight. This minimal oversight is a testament to the USAO’s confidence in Janine’s professionalism and ability to deliver outstanding results. Janine is also very active in the investigation and prosecution of all of the Unit’s state cases. To facilitate the resolution of these cases, Janine has been mentoring paralegal and newly hired investigators. Janine remains one of our most skilled and decisive prosecutors. She routinely delivers excellent results in every facet of MFCU operations. 2. Describe any strengths or accomplishments that distinguished the employee during the past year, including any undertakings beyond those set forth in the position description. Comments: …show more content…
Palin, Webb and Curtiss case has occupied the majority of Janine’s time during this reporting period. The case was tried in a bench trial before a U.S. District Court Judge The investigation of this case was originally initiated in early 2010. Palin and Webb owned Bristol Labs a lab that specialized in urine drug screen testing. The lab worked with a local medical doctor to prescribe Suboxone. The doctor opened what purported to be a substance abuse treatment program that involved only medication assisted treatment using Suboxone in Bristol, Virginia. His practice accepted cash payment only and charged $250 for an initial visit and $100-$110 each week thereafter. The office was located next to Bristol Labs in an adjacent office in the same building as Bristol Labs. Drug screenings were required for patients at each weekly visit and 100 percent of the doctor’s patients were sent to Bristol Labs for drug
Renee Heikamp, 19, and case worker from the Catholic Children’s Aid Society (CCAS), Angie Martin, were charged with criminal negligence resulting in the 1997 death of newborn baby, Jordan Heikamp. The charges were dropped shortly after Jordan’s death, due to a lack of evidence from the investigation of a 63-day inquest. (CBC, 2001). Renee Heikamp and her baby were residing at the Anduhyaun shelter that services Aboriginal women fleeing abuse during the time of his death. Jordan Heikamp had starved to death, weighing only 4 pounds, 4 ounces less than what he weighed at his pre-mature birth, in May 1997; a photograph shown to witnesses at the inquest revealed the corpse of the baby who was little more than a skeleton.
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
These are not the only reasons for urgency to find a killer; the Solicitor General of Atlanta’s circuit, Hugh M. Dorsey, desperately needed a successful conviction because he had recently failed to convict two accused murderers. He was concerned about putting together a case that would hold up in court; no matter what lengths he had to go to in order to accomplish this. Overtime, it became obvious that Dorsey did not necessarily believe that Frank was guilty, but recognized that the political values of his position were uncertain.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
On Wednesday, August 29, 2015, at approximately 2:31 p.m., I, second shift Assault Detective Matthew Grasham, Badge #1661, along with second shift Assault Detective Russ Henslee, Badge #2131, conducted an interview with CARLISA CARTER. Ms. Carter was identified as a witness in this incident by Defense Attorney William Ireland. The following is a summarization of the interview:
R/s they had court on yesterday and Jessica lied to the judge. R/s Jessica told the judge that she had Jacqueline register at Rebound for 30-days treatment services. R/s Jacqueline wasn’t registered at Rebound. R/s last week Jacqueline was scheduled for an assessment at mental health and evaluation on the 23rd, but Jessica didn’t take Jacqueline because she didn’t think it was important. R/s Jaqueline was released from Rebound on 08/15/2016 following a self-harm incident.
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
In August of 2001 Robert Ray Courtney was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri and charged with diluting drugs used to treat cancer patients. Courtney’s actions not only violated criminal and civil laws but they shattered the ethical code and the oath he took as a licensed pharmacist. His actions left many people wondering why anyone would commit such a horrible act, let alone a trusted pharmacist who was providing medication to patients whose very lives depended on him doing his job.
This case can be seen as a perfect example of the justice system failure due to several missteps that took place during the investigation as well as the trial and the biggest being that the overlooked Kimberly Shay Ruffner as a suspect. (Hanes, 2004).
unit’s job is to figure out with crimes “warrants a formal court action” (Elrod & Ryder, 2011).
Who will need to work diligently to ensure that criminal justice reform remains a priority when fights over Affordable Care, immigration and Russian ties take center stage on Capitol Hill. top-tier issue during a time when fights over judicial nominations, the
4)The Yates case: Commentary for United Press International; Susan Crump is a former prosecutor for Houston
From defense lawyer and civil practitioner, to prosecutor and soldier, Judge Schopler brings his unique experiences to his work as the District’s newest magistrate Judge. After a 20-year career first representing capital murder defendants and corporate clients, then transitioning to representing the United States on some of the most important cases in the country, Andrew Schopler took the bench in September of 2016. Judge Schopler draws upon his diverse legal background to understand cases from both sides, allowing him to make fair evaluations in both civil and criminal cases.
The purpose of this case study is to investigate and bring new insight to situations and behaviors within an organization. Case studies are learning tools which utilize social science research to identify and resolve individual and organizational challenges (K. Mariama-Arthur Esq., 2015).
When I began with the GAO, one of the first more notorious cases that I heard about and was asked to review was the Minx Ravenwood’s case. It was known for being difficult as was the constituent. There was a great deal of work that had gone into it and multiple State entities had been a part of addressing the concerns present by Ms. Ravenwood. After reviewing this case I found myself abashed by my lack of understanding and astonished by the amount of work that had gone into it and how perplexing it was. With this said, when it was again assigned in September of this year, and to me, I was intimidated to say the least. However, while working the case I found that my accumulation of my knowledge benefited me significantly in seeing things for what they were, and addressing issues without being caught up in the confusion that was stirred up by the communications with the constituent. When I was working on the Minx Ravenwood case though I required support and staffing from leadership and my cohort, I felt like I had finally reached a point in my understanding and awareness of the role of the GAO that I was competent enough to do this; and this was an incredible