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.
Courtroom Discretion Q&A Response Misty Moore, Victoria Hardin and Elizabeth Ortiz CJA/224 September 19, 2011 Rick Rice Courtroom Discretion Q&A Response What is prosecutorial discretion? When a crime happens evidence is gathered, witnesses are found and a case file is established all the information. Due to an overabundance of case files, prosecutors review each file and which will be brought to trial. When there is enough evidence to convince the prosecutor the person suspected of committing the crime is guilty without a reasonable doubt, he or she will pursue the case to trial. Many decisions pertaining to a case going to trial and how actively they pursue the case are left up to prosecutors and how they view the evidence and what the evidence means to them.
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.
ntroduction to Criminal Justice Briefing Assignment CITATION The name of the case Cooper V. City of Illinois. Thomas Copper is the Plaintiff; the City of Illinois is the defendant. The United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Court decided this case in 1964. The citation states that this case can be found in Volume 382 of the Federal Reporter, Second Series, on page 518. FACTS this lawsuit was brought to the courts for a second time as the plaintiff alleged that because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners.
Sentencing of a Felon John E. Brown Strayer University LEG 320 – Criminal Law Professor Shawn M. Koenig, Esq. November 24, 2013 Sentencing of a Felon Introduction: Sentencing in the United States is governed by the legal process of our judicial system to ensure that all criminals are treated fairly when they are being sentenced. While using certain principles, the court and the legal system work together to make sure that they issue the appropriate punishment. When dealing with proportionality laws, it all depends on if you’re dealing with the state or federal law, and whether the death penalty might apply. When it comes to capital punishment, proportionality under the Eight Amendment to the U. S. Constitution means that any state or federal law that allows for the death penalty must specify the exact crimes for which the death penalty may be imposed.
Jury Trial Analysis Outline Taylor Drake CJA 364 April 21, 2014 Roderick Shelton Jury Trial Analysis Outline I. Introduction A. When a crime has occurred and a person or persons are arrested, the criminal process begins. B. After booking, the accused will have an initial appearance where right to counsel is applied and the defendant will be notified of why they are being detained.
As you can see by the definition, there are big differences between interview and interrogation. The main difference is that interview is asking the witnesses of the crime and interrogation is questioning the ones that are said to have committed the crime. 2. Identify the rule when Miranda warnings are required. “The Miranda rule is to be conducted when the suspect is in custody and the officer is about to conduct the interrogation.” (Hess Orthmann & Hess, 2013).
But what most of you probably don’t know, is that this cop got away with murder, the shooting of john Williams was declared unjustified, and a normal citizen with this charge would do anywhere from 25 years to life in prison. Ian berk was charged with being negligent and got no reasonable punishment from the law, besides a short term suspension from duty. Washington state law makes it extremely difficult to press charges against any police officers around the state, and around the country it is nearly impossible for a police officer to get charged with a crime of injustices. So how will we ever catch the cops doing wrong if we can’t even charge them? Police officers around the country know this is the case, they know they can abuse their power and get away with it.
Prosecutors present evidence in court, question witnesses, and decide if the suspect has been charged, whether to negotiate with the defendant’s attorney or plea bargain with defense counsel. They have great responsibility, or freedom, to make choices about how to prosecute the case and what penalties will be applied once the defendant is convicted. The prosecutor can decide alternative sanctions that need to be applied for example, the amount of the restitution the
The Right to have a Preliminary Examination Once a suspect has been arrested they are entitled to a preliminary hearing. This is designed as a safeguard to protect an individual against the possibility of detention or an unreasonable arrest, so the hearing is conducted to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. The criminal procedure discovers what issues must be raised depending on whether the crime is a misdemeanor, a gross misdemeanor, or a felony. In Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 95 S. Ct. 854, 43 L. Ed. 2d 54 (1975) the United States Supreme Court mandated that persons arrested without a warrant and held by law enforcement must be given a preliminary hearing to determine if there is ‘probable cause.’ Probable cause means that there is reasonable ground exists by the arresting officer who believes in the facts, and a preliminary hearing or preliminary examination would decide whether a prudent person would believe that the suspect committed the offense in light of the facts.