Braithwaite, supra, the Supreme Court held that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. The determination is to be made based on the totality of the circumstances as previously indicated in Stovall v. Denno, supra. The factors to be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure are as set forth in Neil v. Biggers, supra, summarized by the court in Manson to include: "...the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level or certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and confrontation." 432 U.S. 98, 114. Similar standards had previously been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Lathan (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d
Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. It is the prosecutor’s job to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The court does not
Reasonable suspicion is a lawful conventional of evidence in Combined Declares law that is less than potential cause, the lawful conventional for busts and should get, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized doubt or 'hunch' "it must be depending on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with logical implications from those facts". The law on admissibility of a person noticing and identifying is complete of double-speak. Despite lavish and noble terminology such as-“A criminal defendant may be deprived of due process of law by an identification procedure arranged by police which is unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.” State versus Traylor. Eyewitness misidentification is the single biggest cause of inappropriate beliefs national, enjoying a part that close to seventy five percent of convictions are turn over through DNA examining. While eyewitness statement can be powerful proof before a assess or court, 30 years of powerful public technology analysis has confirmed that eyewitness recognition is often not reliable.
While attempting to follow criminal procedure during the investigation of a suspected drug dealer, Sally Martin, Detective Quickdraw finds himself being questioned about the legality of the search and seizure of Martin’s home. Detective Quickdraw believed that all of the facts regarding Martin dealing cocaine were there and obvious. While working undercover and besides hearing through the streets that Martin’s home was known as the drug house, Quickdraw observed the in-and-out traffic at the residence, which further led him to believe that the allegations were true. Another relevant fact was when informant Sneaky Pete returned to Quickdraw’s unmarked police car with a small amount of cocaine, which was purchased from a man inside of Martin’s home. In addition, Sneaky Pete was inside of Martin’s residence long enough to detect items that looked suspicious, such as the digital scales and the square object wrapped in a garbage bag.
If Joe Justice wants to get the deal done with Jim Lawbreaker, what options does he have in terms of bringing charges against him? I am not sure about the options the Joe Justice has regarding making a deal with Jim Lawbreaker, I think that the one of the charges would be accessory to commit a crime, and since he wasn’t the main character in the robbery and I think that in order to get to the main culprit the deal that Jim Lawbreaker attorney is offering is fair since the results of the lab tests are incomplete and a statement from Jim will help the prosecutor make sure that Martin goes to jail for the crime. The evidence does not place Lawbreaker on the scene and no witnesses can place him there either. 2. Does Joe Justice have enough evidence to take a case against Slick Martin to grand
Upon reviewing the facts of Bills case, Sid didn’t arrest Bill until he saw the shaving gel in Bills bag. As stated earlier, it it not evident whether Sid saw Bill not pay for it. If he did not, then a purchase receipt should be required as payment proof. If not, then in accordance with section (b), Sid could lawfully arrest Bill. However, it is ‘exercisable only if--(a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question;…’.
● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
Police officers have to go on the possibility, supreme trustworthiness of police fact finding, treats the person(s) arrested as if he or she were found guilty (N.A., 2008). Crime Control Model Each system was designed by Herbert Packer, a Stanford University law professor, with the intentions to represent the two competing systems of values that operate within our criminal justice system. In this paper we will attempt to compare and contrast the role of the due process and crime control models have on shaping criminal procedure policy. We will review and assess the impact
A search of a defendant’s car produced drugs in a paper bag, and a leather pouch of cash. The paper bag was deemed admissible in court while the leather pouch was thrown out. There was a “greater expectation of privacy” with the pouch. U.S. v Ross (1982) Search incident to lawful arrest is when a person is arrested the police may search the person and any area within that person’s reach. There is no warrant required for this but the officer must have probable cause for the arrest.
Interoffice Memorandum of Law TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Victoria V. v. U Shop Mall Statement of Assignment Prepare a predictive memorandum containing both my analysis and opinion as to whether filing a lawsuit on behalf of Victoria has merit. Also asks for any additional facts that I would like the investigator try to learn as well. Issue Under the tort of Negligence does U Shop Mall have the duty to protect its patrons from criminal acts of third parties? Brief Answer Yes, I feel that U Shop Mall was negligent in several instances. They had prior knowledge of several criminal acts that occurred on and near their property.