However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed. Decision: King entered a conditional guilty plea with his right to appeal to get the evidence suppressed based on it being an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating
c. 265, §15A. This law however, does not define the requirements of what a dangerous weapon is under the law. In the case of Commonwealth v. Shea, the court ruled on the issue of what a dangerous weapon is under the law. In Commonwealth v. Shea, a man threw two women
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA), requires district courts to order restitution in cases of mail fraud, among other federal crimes. The statute makes restitution available to victims of fraud to the extent that those victims would have been entitled to recover in a civil suit against the criminal. Based on the established statutes, Circuit Judge, Wood, found no reason to overturn the original district court’s ruling and affirmed the
MV-6, Exhibit 1 at 1). The record also shows that Woody never appealed hi s conviction or sentence. His § 2255 Motion was his first and only attempt to challenge his sentence. Clearly Woody waived any objections to the PSR as sub mitted. The defendant had the responsibility to advise the Court of any claimed errors in the PSR.
The jury said that there was no evidence of previous crimes such as this one, so the landlord couldn’t predict this criminal act, because it never happened before, so he had no duty to provide any security in the building area and according to this the case was closed and the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment for the defendant. That’s what the judge ordered. My opinion: I think that the judge did the right decision, because the owner of the building had no special relationship with the plaintiff, and he doesn’t have a duty to provide a security, but in my opinion that after this case there should be a law that provides security in the buildings for the safety of the persons that live in them. Reference:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUVENILE BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO. JUDGE MAGISTRATE MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Now comes the defendant, by and through counsel, and respectfully moves that this court suppress identification of the defendant as it was secured through an unnecessarily suggestive showup confrontation. The evidence will show that this identification procedure violated the defendant's due process rights. This motion is supported by the attached memorandum. Respectfully submitted, MEMORANDUM On ______________, 199_, police officers arranged for a (witness) (witnesses) (witness or witnesses) to view the defendant without any other suspects
Although the Supreme Court often speaks about a “preference” for the use of search warrants when it is feasible to obtain one,[FN1] and while the Fourth Amendment by its terms does not distinguish between “searches” and “seizures,” history and experience have created no similar preference for arrest warrants. [FN2] In 1789 it was first provided by statute that an arrest must be made “agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such State.”[FN3] In 1948 the Supreme Court held, by analogy to this statute, that the validity of an arrest without a warrant is also to be tested by state law, except in those cases where Congress has enacted a federal rule. [FN4] Despite the repeal of the statute in 1948, state law still governs arrests without a warrant except to the extent that federal statutes grant or restrict the
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general