Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, appellant, Dennis A. Rivas-Membreno (“Rivas-Membreno”), was convicted of two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, three counts of false imprisonment, conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, inducing false testimony, witness intimidation, solicitation of witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice. On August 21, 2014, Rivas-Membreno was sentenced to a total of thirty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Rivas-Membreno presents two issues for our review, which we rephrase as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence in violation of the rule against hearsay.
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to merge Rivas-Membreno’s
On 14th September 1984, he was convicted of provoked burglary, three murders and rape at Sheffield crown court. The applicant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment by the trial judge and recommended a minimum tariff of 18 years to the secretary of state for
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.
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Facts: On July 29,2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was doing his usually undercover work, dressed in all black with twenty on dollar bill hanging out his pocket. Leavitt was then approached by the Miller (defendant) asking him for money. The detective refused to give him the money, in return the appellant put his arm around the detective’s neck taking the cash out of his front pocket. The arrest time the pulled up and took Miller into custody and charged him with larceny. Miller was convicted, and sentenced by the district courts to spend up to thirty two months, but no less than 12 months in jail.
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.
Questions Presented: This is where the legal issues are stated that the party would like for the appellate court to think about and make a final decision (Statsky, pg. 545).
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
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
Carrying from the trial, the first issue arising was whether the primary Judge erred in his consideration of the scope of the respondent’s duty of care. The second was whether the respondent’s failure to give evidence produced a Jones v Dunkel inference, suggesting greater elapsed time between radio adjustment and collision.
(Ganganon vs Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). After his sentence was suspended he was placed on probation and signed a wavier saying that he could remain in Illinois. However, while on probation he was arrested during the course of a burglary he and an accomplice committed. After being arrested Scarpelli admitted to his crime, but later detested his admission stating that he gave it under duress. Because of this his probation was revoked and he was sentenced without a hearing. Scarpelli appealed this court decision after 2 years filing a habeas corpus on the bases that his due process rights had been violated because he did not have counsel during the revocation
In 1983, a young man named Michael was brought before a Pennsylvania court on a charge of armed robbery: he stole $50 from a taxi driver using a toy gun. A few days later he was arrested and was subsequently convicted. Although the trial judge sentenced Michael to 6 months in prison and required that he repay the $50, the prosecutor demanded the 5 year minimum sentence required by state law. The trial judge ruled the mandatory sentencing law unconstitutional, and Michael served his prison time and repaid the money. Four years later, the state supreme court ordered the trial judge to sentence Michael to 5 years in prison. The trial judge refused and resigned. The judge to whom the case was reassigned permitted Michael to remain free pending another appeal to the state supreme court. Michael realized the futility of his cause in court and quietly disappeared, and he remains at large today.
I, Erin Clark, am writing this letter in support of Antonio Yanez. I understand he has been accused of Burglary, Armed robbery- with a deadly weapon, and Kidnapping. I have know Antonio for more than half of my life. We have been like family since we were children. My mother and his mother have been best friends for more than two decades. So as you can imagine I have come to know him very well. One thing I can GUARANTEE is he is not ruthless, villainous, wicked, unprincipled, heinous, immoral or perverse. Therefore, I find these accusations ambiguous and dubitable.
To conclude, the motion to suppress can be excluded unless granted or erred by a judge. The police officers in this case failed to accept responsibility of abuse of authority by violating the 4th Amendment right of the United States Constitution, by using probable cause with an invalid unreasonable search and seizure of the suspects. Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted in that
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.