After taken to trial, the prosecutor's case “consisted solely of his confession” to obtain a conviction. The Maricopa County Superior Court convicted Miranda of both rape and kidnapping and was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that “the police had unconstitutionally obtained his confession” as well as the absence of an attorney during the interrogation and should have been excluded from trial. The police officers involved admitted that they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights.
The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony. ( (Death Penalty in America,)Legal Studies 485, Spring 2003. Stanford was convicted of murder, first degree sodomy, first degree robbery, and receiving stolen property. He was sentenced to death and forty five years in prison. Stanford appealed this sentencing on the notion that his eight amendments protectipon against cruel and unusual punishment had been violated.
His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013) Burke is most likely to receive this sentence, because it is exactly the crime he committed. He committed manslaughter which was proven by the messages on the phone and apparently other evidence that has been found.
“Knowledge is Power” Malcolm X, born Malcolm Little and also known as El-hakk Malik El-Shabazz, was a street hustler convicted of robbery in 1946. He spent six years in prison and used this time to enhance his education level simply by reading. After his release from prison, he became an influential leader, and member of the Nation of Islam. Malcolm X became a heroic advocate for the rights of blacks and has been called one of the greatest and most influential African Americans in history. After hitting rock bottom in 1946, at age 20, Malcolm x was sentenced to six years in prison for larceny and breaking and entering.
or a real life experience, at some point in time everybody has heard a police officer read a suspect their rights. The Miranda warning is given by police officers to inform you of your rights. But where did the Miranda warning get its start, and what rights does it actually protect? In 1963 Phoenix, Arizona resident, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested on charges of rape, kidnap, and burglary. During a grueling two hour-long interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to these crimes (McBride, 2006).
The applicant has numerous convictions ranging from traffic offence, to drug supply and distribution. Carew participated as a drug courier, and was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment but received bail of a period of 18 months. While on bail Carew trafficked drugs and was found carrying weapons. After multiple incidents concerning methylamphetamines the police found large sums of cash at his residents and evidence to show Carew was making substantial illicit drug transactions. It is however evident that the applicant has never failed to appear for court before, but has though committed criminal offences while on bail.
Miranda V Arizona I. Facts: The Supreme Court consolidated four different cases that all had issues with the admissibility of evidence; specifically evidence obtained during police interrogations. Ernesto Miranda the first defendant was arrested for kidnapping and rape, he was an immigrant and the officers did not notify him of his rights. Miranda signed a confession after only two hours of interrogation. The confession also came with a statement that he was told of his rights.
An interesting study from the FBI uniformed crime reports from 2006 to 2010 shows 54% of rapes/sexual assaults go unreported. 3% of those reported actually serve time in jail. In the same study done by the FBI, out of every 100 rapes, 46 get reported, 12 lead to arrests, 9 get prosecuted, 5 lead to felony convictions, and 3 will spend even a day in jail. (1) Surgical castration is any action, surgical, chemical, or otherwise by which a male loses the functions of the testicles or a female loses the functions of the ovaries. Chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce the libido and sexual activity.
Federal Prison Comparison CJA 234 August 15, 2011 Federal Prison Comparison This paper will compare, contrast, and describe the prisons to which the following individuals were all convicted of federal crimes and sent to serve the sentences at a federal prison. Martha Stewart, Ivan Boesky, Michael Millken, Manuel Noriega, Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Al Capone, and John Gotti. Martha Stewart was convicted and charged in 2004 for her role in the well time stock sale. The charges included conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying and giving false statements to investigators. She was imprisoned on October, 2004 at The Federal Prison Camp in Alderson, West Virginia, which is a minimum security facility.
Criminal Law Paper Carolyn Waddell-Tillman 354 February 7, 2014 Professor William Heiman Criminal Law Paper Arrest Search and Investigation DNA Cheek Swab Maryland v. King, 569 U.S._ (June 3, 2003) The defendant was arrested in 2009 for menacing a group of people with a shotgun, the defendant was charged in state court with assault, where he was processed for detention custody at a central booking facility. Booking personnel used a cheek swab to take the DNA sample from him pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act. His DNA was uploaded into the Maryland DNA database and matched a 2003 sample from an unsolved rape case. He was charged and convicted in the rape case (criminallawresources.com) What interested me about this