The State now appeals this decision. We conclude that even though the superior court’s actions in the civil lawsuit had the effect of preventing Cook from hiring a private attorney in the murder case, the superior court’s actions did not violate Cook’s Sixth Amendment right to hire the attorney of his choosing. True, the
Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was charged for the murder of his wife. Reasoning of the Court: If the suspect could destroy the evidence then at that time and manner it is constitutional to take the sample or whatever they may need. There was no formal arrest therefore it technically could also be allowed. Under these circumstances, the police are justified in subjecting him to the very limited search and seizure to preserve the evidence they found under his fingernail. Notes * Don’t need search warrant for fingerprints, voice, handwriting * Search to take place because of probable cause, not a full search b/c not arrested.
The police told Escobedo that his alleged coconspirator in the shooting of his brother-in-law had confessed and Escobedo was involved. The police were able to obtain a written confession, and Escobedo was eventually convicted of murder. Escobedo appealed his conviction, claiming his confession was obtained without his lawyer being present in violation of his right to counsel, and should be thrown out. DECISION/REASONING: The Supreme Courts decision held for the first time that defendants had a right to counsel even before they were indicted for a certain crime. Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment However, the decision was overshadowed by the court's Miranda decision two years later, and later decisions by both the Supreme Court and lower courts indicated the decision in Escobedo was to be limited to its facts.
The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy. Whether Armington is guilty or not guilty in the criminal trial Jennings can bring a civil suit against Armington to recover damages. Jennings was injured during the crime so he has the right to pursue a civil case to cover his injury. References Lectlaw.com (1995-2012). Double Jeopardy.
Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court qualified the rule it set forth in Enmund v. Florida. Just as in Enmund, the Tison Court applied the proportionality principle to conclude that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life. This case stems from an infamous prison break during the summer of 1978. Gary Tison was serving a life sentence at the Arizona State Prison in Florence for killing a prison guard. His three sons plotted to break him and his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt, out of prison.
Week #3 Discussion Question Discuss the difference between inculpatory and exculpatory evidence and the role each plays in the juvenile court intake process. Inculpatory evidence evidence shows a person's involvement in an act. Evidence which tends to show a person's innocence is considered exculpatory evidence. In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty). [2] Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested.
Brandon Barker Current Event A long-time friend of the alleged Boston Marathon bomber testified in court today that he gave Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the gun later used in the shooting death of an MIT police officer. Stephen Silva, 21, told the court that he would consider Tsarnaev "one of my best friends." Silva is currently in prison after he was the subject of an undercover federal drug investigation last year and signed a plea deal with the government. While wearing a beige prison jumpsuit, Silva testified that two months before the bombings at the Boston Marathon finish line, he gave Tsarnaev a 9-millimeter handgun that had an "obliterated" serial number. The gun was later used in the fatal shooting of MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, according
However, a person cannot be charged for violating the H.R 347 law unless the government proves that these people were fully aware of being disorderly and/or being near any restricted building or ground. Therefore, this means that individuals unaware of blocking the entrance of a restricted building or even if they just didn’t know they were nearby such building cannot be charged for this crime. Also, the violation of this law will require one to commit “disorderly or disruptive conduct [that] in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” Freedom of speech gives people the right to express themselves. However, a person can express their opinion without intentionally meaning to interfere with the government. Choosing to express their opinion by purposely showing disruptive conduct does not concur with the First
❑ Haywood Patterson was given 75 years in prison. In 1948, he escaped and was caught in 1950, but the state of Michigan wouldn’t extradite him to Alabama. ❑ Charlie Weems received 75 years and Andy Wright got 99 years. ❑ Ozzie Powell stabbed a deputy and was shot in the head. He survived, but was given 20 years for the stabbing.
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent.