Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs. Why did their judgment not stand? Their judgment could stand because one of the parties believed that there was an error of law; some areas that can include mistakes about the substantive law that was made during the trial. Bases for appeal include failure by the trial judge to admit or exclude certain evidence, improper instruction being given to the jury, and the granting or denying the motion to dismiss the case. Usually the party appealing must show that the mistake would have affected the outcome.
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.
Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense. Justification is when the defendant admits to committing the act in question but claims it was necessary in order to avoid some greater evil. Whereas, excuse is when a defendant claims some personal condition or circumstance at the time of the act was such that he or she should not be held accountable under the criminal law (Schmalleger, Hall,
On the other hand, Luban, would say Yoo ignores the law models and war models if they deny terrorist suspects protection as required. Yoo says, in order to convict a defendant of torture the prosecution must have establish that the torture occurred outside the United States, the defendant acted under the color of law, he victim was within the custody of the defendant, the pain or suffering should be intended. Torture is performed on victims to obtain information or confession, to punish them, for intimidation, or for discrimination. Mental pain is effected by intentional or threatened infliction of severe physical or mental pain, administration or threatened administration of mind altering substances or methods that disrupt senses or personality, threat of imminent death or threat that another person will be immediately subjected to death. Luban raised two models; first is the war model, which supports the use of lethal force on enemy troops irrespective of whether they were personally involved with the adversary.
Cheet Sheet: Jenkins v. Florida AppellantJenkins 1974 Federal Privacy Act -Restricts access to medical information and records Jaffee v Redmond 518 US 1 - Supreme Court 1996 Background: Mary Lu Redmond, a former police officer, received extensive counseling from a licensed clinical social worker after she shot and killed Ricky Allen. Carrie Jaffee, special administrator for Allen, filed suit in federal District Court alleging that Redmond had violated Allen's constitutional rights by using excessive force in the encounter. During the trial, Jaffee sought access to the notes from Redmond's counseling. Redmond's counsel resisted asserting the conversations were protected against involuntary disclosure by a psychotherapist-patient privilege. The District Court judge rejected the argument, but the notes were not released.
Jury Nullification Paper John Doe CJA 344 August 2012 Instructor Name Jury Nullification Paper Jury Nullification and it’s affects on the criminal justice system. Jury Nullification is a process that allows jurors to acquit an individual, even when they are technically guilty, and not warrant for punishment. In essence the juror are suggesting that the law in general is unfair or in a particular case. Jury Nullification “Is rooted in English common law and is sometimes used in cases, in which the jury believes a prosecutor enforced an unpopular law or a jury sympathizes with the defendant” (McNamara & Burns, 2009, p. 265). Because of perceived mistreatment of African American by the criminal justice system, Jury Nullification has become controversial because a number of well-known African American scholars encouraged Black jurors to acquit Black defendants (McNamara & Burns, 2009).
In the case that they are not willing to collaborate with the prosecution, the defense is not permitted access to the requested evidence. In an example of discovery of evidence, Brady v. Maryland (1963), Brady and his acquaintance Boblit were prosecuted for murder. Though the prosecution had a written statement from Boblit, in which he admitted that he alone had killed the victim, they had convicted Brady for the crime as well. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that withholding evidence that is pertinent either to a person’s guilt or to their punishment violates due process
Here’s where the issue comes into play. Mr. King admitted his guilt and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Officials of the corrections department collected Mr. King’s DNA. This is a state law, but unfortunately for Mr. King his DNA came back linked to a crime of rape in 2003. Here are the particulars of the problems of this case; one the DNA collected was not needed for the assault case again in which Mr. King pleaded guilty.
In most murder cases criminals who commit heinous crimes have used the insanity defense in pleading their cases. I’ve heard about a lot of people who have committed unspeakable crimes plead insanity in the preceding court trials. Would you let someone like this hide behind this plea and basically get away with murder? A criminal who was in his right state of mind meaning they knew what they were doing shouldn’t be able to use the insanity defense. In this speech I am going to tell you about the types of insanity defense that are used in court cases, the process that goes into verifying a criminals sanity, and the issues that come about after a plea is entered.
Without evidence of each of these three principles criminal liability cannot be established. The first requirement would be to prove that defendant’s conduct was the factual cause of the consequence. This can be established using the ‘but for’ test, meaning ‘but for’ the defendant’s conduct the consequence would not have happened. This can be seen in White (1910) were the defendant was held to be not guilty of murder as his mother died of a heart attack which was not caused by the defendant’s conduct of putting cyanide in her drink. Another case example is Pagett (1983) where the defendant was found guilty for the muder of his girlfriend a had it not been ‘but for’ his actions she would not have been killed by police bullets.