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
After the questioner the police officer will have to build a case with the evidences gathered and send a case with the evidences to CPS (Crown Prosecution Services). Then CPS could state whether it’s enough evidences gathered to take the person to court or it can state that there is not enough evidences. That where it comes to the bail. (www.findlaw.co.uk) The bail can be granted or denied it all depends what is the offence and whether the person can be dangerous if goes back to the society/community. If the person is arrested on suspicious of the murder that would be clearly obvious that the person wouldn’t get the bail, as that person could try to run away also could attempt more murders or even self-harmed.
This essay will consider at the various advantages and disadvantages of the Jury within the context of the legal system. It will start by highlighting the role of the jury in a trial, of whom they are comprised, and how the system works. It will then go on to analyse on the advantages and disadvantages of the system, including illustrative evidence both supporting and opposing the jury system. Following this there will be a short summary, highlighting the main points of this essay and then a conclusion. A jury can be defined as a group of people (usually 12 in number) who have been selected to consider the issues of fact in a trail in a Court of Law, in order to make a finding as to an individual’s guilt or lack thereof to a standard which is either “beyond reasonable doubt” or “on the balance of probabilities”.
It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial. In the future of plea bargaining, I would like to see those who do choose to go to trial to receive no biased or threats of harsh sentences placed upon them simply because they chose not to agree to a plea bargain and maintain their constitutional right to remain innocent until proven
Afterwards the arraignment is opened in court to make sure the defendant has a copy of their indictment, after the indictment is read and the defendant is asked to give a plea whether guilty or not guilty. A this time the defendant can waive his appearance for the arraignment if signed by both the defendant and the counsel. The written waiver is signed by both affirming that the defendant received a copy of the indictment stating the plea is not guilty, and the court has to accept the signed
“For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view. Under the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement, the appropriateness of every warrantless search is decided on a case-by-case basis, weighing the defendant's privacy interests against the reasonable needs of law enforcement under the circumstances” (G K. Hill, 2005). Another exception to warrant requirements as it pertains to the above article is that the video released shows there was a lack of physical harm as seen on George Zimmerman. This was important to the prosecution because Zimmerman claimed Trayvon Martin attacked him and his death was a result of self defense. In conclusion, authority’s base warrants on probable cause which are only necessary in a small percentage of cases.
1 Final Exam Essays Katherine Keeler Kaplan University PA260-01 Unit 9 May 22, 2012 2 Distinguish between the detention of an individual and the arrest of an individual. What is “stop and frisk” and what is the landmark ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court case that first set forth the law relating to stop and frisks. Sum up the Court's holding in this case. Dentention The detention of an individual occurs when police officers stop a person they believe have been involved in or will commit a crime. The person will be asked to identify themselves and to tell the officer about their presence and activity in a certain area.
The conviction was overturned due to allegedly intimidating police interrogation methods. After a retrial that included witnesses and other evidence, Miranda was again convicted. His trial was, however, then assured of being fair, and the original conviction was reasonably upheld without question.”(History of Miranda Warning) Due to the case of Miranda v. Arizona all police agencies in America present Miranda Rights to people when they are being arrested. In the case Miranda’s lawyer states that Miranda was not presented with his rights, he didn’t know what he was being arrested for. Now all police agencies present Miranda Rights to people who are being arrested so that the person in custody can know what their rights are.
The police first need to talk with the judge, show evidence that proves the possibility of find evidence, defined specifically where they will look for proof in order to get a warrant. Furthermore, another example of the problems that are treated in the bill of rights is similarly show in the movie “ Dirty Harry “ too, when the inspector Callahan start to hit the criminal instead of read him his Miranda rights. Related with the 6th amendment “The Miranda rights need to be spoken by a law enforcement official to an individual who is a criminal suspect and in police custody before they begin to question the individual about the circumstances surrounding the crime” (Law Info) This is important because to incriminate evidence admissible in a trial , the police need to provide the suspect with his or her Miranda warnings prior to obtaining the
Judges also deal with the issue of bail once established that there is enough evidence to hold a criminal trial against the defendant during the preliminary hearing. Judges decide on whether to grant bail, and if so at what amount and on what conditions. If any of the conditions are broken by the defendant, the judge can also revoke bail and issue a warrant for his or her arrest. Once the criminal or civil trial has begun, the judge presides over the courtroom (Meyer & Grant, 2003). When the jury reaches a verdict of guilty, the judge is responsible for following established legal guidelines during sentencing.