R. v. Keilty
In the case R.v.Keilty the accused, Keilty, was charged and convicted of trafficking in narcotics. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on the grounds that the trial judge erred in law. The facts in the case were not disputed but the actual definition of possession under section 2 of the
Narcotic Control Act was the issue. The appellant never actually did sell the narcotics nor did he at anytime have possession. It is illogical to convict a person of possession when they don't actually have possession as defined in the
Criminal Code. Therefore is it logical to convict a person of trafficking if there were no narcotics?
Crown arguments
The actual possession is irrelevant because section 2 of the Narcotic
Control Act states that trafficking means: (a) to manufacture, sell, give, administer, transport, send, deliver, or distribute, or (b) offer to do anything referred to in paragraph (a) otherwise than under the authority of this Act or the regulation The appellant obviously offered to sell the narcotics to the officer and as in R.v.Mancuso he should be found guilty. Also the actual physical possession is not necessarily needed to be proven as was in R.v.Russo where the defendant was convicted of possession and trafficking even though he did not posses at any time the narcotics. In the case R.v.Piscopo it was demonstrated that an accused can be convicted upon circumstantial evidence. The accused can be convicted using all of the aforementioned cases. Another issue is that if this case becomes precedent it would open a "floodgate" or loophole in the law where other criminals may escape through. This would allow for more dangerous dealers of narcotics, who operate their business "long distance" to escape prosecution because they never actually had the narcotics in their possession. Appellant arguments
A person should not be stigmatized by conviction for a criminal offense they did not actually commit.. The case R.v.Vallancourt illustrates the use of the "stigma" test. A person who is convicted of possession should not be also branded as a trafficker of narcotics also. Another principle brought to the court from the R.v.Vallancourt case is that a crime requires a minimal state of mental blameworthiness. This means that the person must bear a certain degree of moral fault for what he did. To convict the accused of trafficking in narcotics when everyone acknowledges that there were no narcotics would seem to violate this principle. Using the rational connection established in the
R.v.Oakes it would appear as if the government of Canada is trying to reduce trafficking but if a person who did not posses or sell any narcotics is
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
As instructed in the outline for this assignment, I have read and analysed the case of R. v. Keegstra. I have understood the allegations placed and the defence of the same. Also, I have answered the questions provided explaining the rights at stake, the procedure that court adopted to reach to a final decision and that whether or not it was able to reach a balance between the individual and the group rights.
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
Nick Salvatore’s book Eugene V. Debs Citizen and Socialist provides a very detailed account of the life and times and Eugene Debs. Debs was born in Terre Haute Indiana and Salvatore emphasizes the important role that this played in Debs upbringing. Terre Haute was ripe with religious fundamentalism from its founding. Religion permeated everyday life throughout Terre Haute. Salvatore writes that, “In newspaper editorials, political speeches, civic dedications and Sunday sermons they assured the kingdom of God had already arrived and that their town was destined to become the center of the Kingdoms Midwest development.” It is striking how the ideals of the Terre Haute community based in religious fundamentalism and a strong industrial economy provided a seemingly Marxist critique of a capitalist system in the 1860’s well before Marxist ideas had widely spread to America. Terre Haute’s social construct was unique in that there was the undeniable American value of individual achievement stressed but here the role of community was necessary to achieve this. In Terre Haute it was believed that for individual prosperity the progress of the community as a whole was necessary. Salvatore explains this best himself writing, “The individual was firmly wedded to his community by both the bonds of daily life and by the expectations of future success. The ideas of individualism, self-interest and community appeared to meld.” This seemingly socialist ideology that man relies on himself and his brethren for progress and success was critical to Debs’ formation of his values and ideologies. Even the Superintendent of Terre Haute schools offered this, “If we shall limit the education of the masses and trust the education of the few for directive power and skill we must expect to be ruled by monopolies, demagogues and partisans” Throughout his life Debs constantly fell back on his Terre Hautian upbringing to reinforce his political values which separated him from the Milwaukee and northeastern socialists
In chapter twelve, Joel Samaha has discussed various court proceedings before trial. Samaha begins to elaborate the importance of the prosecutor’s decision in determining whether there is a concrete case against the alleged defendant. The evidence at hand ultimately dictates the proceeding of events in court. Along with evidence, the lack of resources might add to the difficulty in charging an individual. Prosecutors are faced with an overload of cases; ultimately prosecutors are forced to prioritize their cases based on their resources and the evidence provided. The cases that are regarded are then considered for suspect detainment. Probable cause to detain suspects is undergone so that the case may proceed to trial. Typically an arraignment
The commonwealth outlined several behaviors the defendants displayed as basis for their appeal. The first fact presented by the commonwealth was that months prior to the fire the defendants had been trespassing in the cold storage and been living there. The defendants used the second floor as a makeshift apartment that was lighted by candles and kerosene heater. The next fact presented was that the defendants accidently started the fire and they tried to extinguish it before abandoning their efforts. Another fact present...
as to whether or not a case is taken up. This is what decides the
Reasoning: The responsibility of the prosecutor is to disclose information and evidence. If there is a promise being made by an attorney, then the information should be must be attributed to the government. The Supreme court had found that the prosecutor’s lacked to disclose evidence that was relevant to the defense. The prosecutor had also failed to correct the false evidence that had been presented at the
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.