Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
State v. Marshall, 179 N.C 427 (1935). Opinion by: Stacy, C.J. Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately. Preceding History: Marshall was convicted of manslaughter and it was affirmed. Issue: From Marshalls own testimony it’s clear …show more content…
Miller v. State. 110 Nev. 536 (2005). Opinion by:Per Curiam. 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. Procedural History: Miller filled for an appeal claiming that he was entrapped, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct. Issue: Can the defendant be found guilty of the charges, because he was caught by a decoy? Miller believes that the Officer entrapped him, by tempting him with exposed …show more content…
Application/Analysis: While using a previous case DePasquale v. State 757.1988, that court held in this case that the defendant was not entrapped when he robbed that undercover female decoy. The court held that the officers committed no misconduct, they also put five factors that show that Miller intended to steal from the decoy. The fact that Mill asked Officer Leavitt for money first and after Leavitt told him no; Miller took it upon himself to take the money away. This act was enough to show Miller intentionally committed larceny, the court held that Miller was not
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
Facts of the Case: “The defendant Anthony Faretta was accused of grand theft in Los Angeles, CA. Prior to the trial, the defendant requested permission to represent himself” (Gardner, 2000). Mr. Faretta stated that he had once represented himself in a criminal case and that he believed that his court order attorney could not efficiently advise him due to other priorities.
Facts:A detective dressed in plain clothes and carried a concealed weapon approached the D from behind while another officer waited near the area. The police officer identified himself and asked if D would like to talk which he agreed to. The officer asked D which state he lived in. D didn’t specify a precise location. The officer asked whether D was carrying drugs in his travel bag which D denied to. When he denied, the other officer appeared about five feet away from D. The search failed to show signs of illegal evidence. THe police officer then asked if he was carrying on his person which he denied to. The officer asked if he can conduct a body search, D complied. The officer started from his ankles, up his leg, and passed over the crotch area. the officer felt small rock-like objects and placed D under arrest. at the station, officer unzipped Ds pants and found a plastic bag of cocaine like substances. D was
In one of Law & Order’s “ripped from the headlines” episodes titled “House Counsel,” a juror in a mob trial is found dead. Law enforcement investigates and learns that the mobster tampered with the juror in order to avoid a conviction and then killed him to keep him quiet. The lawyer defending the mobster is a good friend of Assistant District Attorney Jack McCoy. Later in the investigation, McCoy discovers that his friend may have played a role in the jury tampering. When he suspects his friend is involved, McCoy sees an opportunity to get the mobster and prosecutes the attorney for the murder to leverage information about the mobster. In the end, the lawyer is convicted and the attorney-client privilege between the lawyer and the mobster is dissolved.
McCulloch v. Maryland is the record of one of several federalism court cases, which concern states' rights over the federal government. On March 6, 1819, the record was delivered by chief justice John Marshall, in the light of the huge debts the United States incurred after the War of 1812 against Britain. The holding of the Court was in favor of the Second Bank of United States.
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
At 2:30 pm in downtown Cleveland Ohio officer McFadden noticed 2 black males on a corner taking turns walking back and forth observing two stores. After 10 to 12 minutes a third man, white male, came by and talked with the other two. After a couple of minutes one man left and went west. Another couple of minutes later the other two left in the same direction. As the men walk around the corner the police officer follows. The officer approached the men and stated that he was an officer and asked their names. They mumbled something and at this point the officer reached out and spun terry around and patted him down. The officer felt what might have been the handle of a gun, so he tried to remove the gun but could not. The officer then took the coat off the man and retrieved the gun. He ordered all three in the store and told them they were under arrest and told the store personnel to “order the wagon”. Officer McFadden ordered the men against the wall when he other searched Chilton and found a revolver. He then searched Katz and found nothing.
I observed the officer claim that when he questions the defendant, he felt as if he was off. The victim gives a full detail report to the officer, describing what the person looked like and everything. One of the officers had taken his picture, and sent one to the transit police, to see if it was the same person they were looking for. In the meantime, the woman officer was interrogating him about where he has been and of prescription medication that was discovered in his bag. However, the defendant lied about why his taking the medicine. I observed that the police mentioned the defendant was very yielding and being extremely corporative. The officer mentioned that he took him to the hospital for psych assessment being that he was acting odd, so they kept him because of strange behavior. I observed the officer mention that from there, they got a report that the defendant was the same person they were looking at in the pictures. It was at the hospital that they arrested the defendant.
With the help from F. Lee Bailey, who spent five years appealing the verdict; all the way to the Supreme Court, released Sheppard from prison granting retrial for inherently prejudicial publicity (Rompalske 20). Although Sheppard was found not guilty in 1966, his life had been des...
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
Attorney Vinny was trying to get information from the district attorney by coming up with as many ideas as he can. He didn’t know that the prosecution requires to share the information with attorney until his fiancée points out to him. This shows the lack of his knowledge in criminal justice.
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
Mr. Miller’s alibi does not add up at all. Mr. Miller said at around four pomp he was raking the grass in the back yard, Mr. Miller said he always mows the back yard then the front then he rakes. Mr. Miller said he finished cutting and raking the grass at five pomp, set the rake down by the tree and went into the house to watch the OSU-Michigan basketball game. He heard his wife scream at exactly 5:35pm he new because he checked his Rolex watch. He seen her laying face down into the grass and he new she was dread right away so he called the
him in a lineup (Neufeld and Scheck). This relates to the wrongful conviction because she