On the evening of September 21, 1977, the alleged victim in the case, known as Pat, was out at a high school alumni function, where she met up with several friends. They decided to go to Fells Point to have a few drinks. While en route, Pat stopped to phone her mother who was watching her child to inform her that she would not be out much longer. Once at Fells Point, they went to the bar and had approximately one drink. Pat and her girl friend, Terry, walked two blocks to an additional bar. This is where Pat met the defendant, Edward Rusk. A conversation ensued between the two of them. It was reported that their conversation covered the subject of them both being separated from their spouses and having children. Rusk is reported to have asked Pat for a …show more content…
By definition, second-degree rape is defined as “a person is guilty in the second degree if the person engages in vaginal intercourse with another person by force against the will and without the consent of the other person” (Brody & Acker, 2010, p. 257). Edward Rusk was found guilty of second degree rape by a jury of his peers. Through his attorney, Rusk filed an appeal through Court of Special Appeals which reversed the conviction. The Court of Special Appeals concluded by an 8-5 majority that in view of the prevailing law as set forth in Hazel v. State, insufficient evidence of Rusk’s guilt had been adduced at the trial to permit the case to go to the jury” (Rusk v. State, 1981). The issue at hand was whether there was sufficient evidence presented to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intercourse was by force or threat of force and against the will of the victim. The Court of Special Appeals used the case of Hazel v. State, at which time they concluded that Pat in this case, did not demonstrate reasonable apprehension or fear of harm. The Court concluded that just “having a look in his eyes” did not warrant or justify a conviction of rape (State v. Rusk,
The defendant Rachel Holland was at the time a nine-year old girl with an intellectual disability with an I.Q. of 44 and an academic functioning level of a four-year old child. Rachel was described as being well behaved and popular with her second grade classmates. She enjoyed school and was motivated to learn. The plaintiff Sacramento Unified School District proposed to educate Rachel half time in a special education class, and half-time placement in a regular classroom. Rachel’s core classes such as Reading and Math services would be rendered in a special education class and classes such as PE, Music, Lunch, and Recess would be rendered in a general education classroom. Rachel’s Individual Education Plan (IEP) stressed language and communication goals such as speaking in four or five word sentences, initiating and terminating conversations, verbally stating name, developing twenty-four word sight vocabulary, counting to twenty-five, and printing first and last
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.
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.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
The duty of prosecutorial disclosure is one that is safely entrenched in our understanding of the legal system. The prosecution must disclose evidence that relates to the case and is favorable to the defendant. While not explicitly stated in that duty, it also means that the histories of the witnesses are available to the defense. And when police officers are called to testify at cases, their disciplinary histories come into play as a factor in their credibility. Taking all this prior information into account when addressing the dilemma of the police officer with a good record who used the department computers to look at pornography using his login information, and then lied about it only to confess when the internal investigation proved
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States.
In order to commit the crime of simple battery in the state of Georgia, the following elements must be present at the time the crime is being committed: “(1) Intentionally makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with the person of another; or (2) Intentionally causes physical harm to another.”
Dred Scott v. Stanford is a case in which an African-American man sued for his freedom. In 1833, Dr. John Emerson purchased a slave. He moved to the Wisconsin Territory with Dred Scott, his slave. Slavery was banned there due to the Missouri Compromise. Because Emerson was in the army, he would go away for long periods of time, and Scott would get small paying jobs while Emerson was away. In 1843 Dr. Emerson passed away, and left Dred Scott, Scott’s wife, and their children to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In 1846, Dred Scott attempted to use the money he had earned over the years to buy his family’s freedom from Sanford, but she would not accept the offer. When Dred Scott was refused his freedom, he decided to sue Sanford for his freedom in a state court. His argument was that he was legally free because he had been living in a territory were slavery had been outlawed. In 1850, Scott was declared free, but Eliza Sanford did not want to deal with the case, so she left the Scott family to her brother, John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. During the time of the case, Scott’s wages were being withheld, and he was owed money from Mr. Sanford. He was not willing to pay Dred Scott his money, so he appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court overruled the state court’s decision, ruling in favor of Sanford.
Indeed, themes of coercion are oftentimes synonymous with family-related oppression that various groups faced. Some benefits were meant for children who were missing a parent, as merely lacking finances was not enough to merit welfare. Yet despite defining the condition as “absence of a parent,” what these programs really meant was the absence of a father-- the traditional wage-earner of the household. [footnote 115] There was anxiety about whether or not “able-bodied males might surreptitiously benefit from grants given to women and children,” for if one was physically able then regardless of whether or not the wages and hours were fair it was believed one should work. [footnote 124] Thus, any perceived method to circumvent such assigning
Tom is a hedonist who likes to spend all of his money on luxurious clothing and goods.
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
On the way home one evening, 31-year old Steve Titus who was a restaurant manager and had recently been engaged, was pulled over by cops and taken into custody. Earlier that evening a female hitch hiker had been brutally raped and Titus was driving a car very similar to the suspect and also matched the physical description of the suspect. Upon arrival of the police station, Titus had his picture taken by a cop, and was then put in a photo line up with several other men so the victim could identify one who was her attacker. The victim stated that Steve Titus was the closest to what her attacker appeared to be. After being chosen by the victim, the police and prosecution then followed through with a trial. During trial, the rape victim got onto the stand and stated that she was absolutely positive that Steve Titus was her rapist. Elizabeth Loftus argued that the victim had elicited a false memory of the attacker due to a biased line up. Her judgment had been changed throughout the process of going to court through indications which created a false memory. The jurisdiction then decided that Titus was indeed guilty and that he would be convicted regardless of him proclaiming his innocence. Rumors and also news articles from years ago state that the prosecution testimony was changed and that evidence that would’ve proved Mr. Titus’s innocence was just kind of swept
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
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.