Barbara Brown Criminal Procedure Everest University Online July 27, 2013 Write a case brief of U.S. v. Katz, including facts, procedural history, issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion. Label each component of the brief. Katz v. U. S., 389 U. S. 347 (1967) Facts: Charles Katz was arrested after FBI agents overheard him making illegal gambling bets while in a public phone booth. The agents paced electronic listening and recording devices to the outside of the booth and only heard and recorded Katz’s end of the conversation. Procedural History: Katz had moved to have the evidence suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, which was denied by the trial court.
On July 28, defendant was sentenced in the criminal case. Defendant appealed the criminal conviction, claiming that the civil forfeiture and criminal sentence constituted double jeopardy and because the sentence was the last to be imposed, the conviction must be set aside (Hames 348). Hames, Joanne B., Yvonne Ekern. Introduction to Law, 4th Edition. Pearson Learning Solutions, 07/2009.
Citation: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) Parties: Luis E. Melendez: Petitioner Facts: Petitioner was tried in state court on charges for distributing cocaine and trafficked in cocaine, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws and the prosecution entered into evidence certificates signed by state laboratory analysts, which stated that evidence seized from the petitioner was cocaine. The state called no witness to allow cross examination on the veracity of the report, but relied instead on a state law allowing affidavits of lab analysis to be admitted. Petitioner objected to admission of the certificates, claiming that their admission violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront the analysts who signed the certificates, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates under Mass. Gen. Laws.
Defendant was gone when Locklear regained consciousness. Butler was convicted of first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to death. Butler had an automatic right to appeal the conviction to the Supreme Court of California. Issues: To be convicted of larceny or robbery, must the defendant possess felonious intent to take the personal property of another person without believing, in good faith, that the defendant has a right or claim to the property? Rule: To be convicted of larceny or robbery, the defendant must possess felonious intent to take the personal property of another person without believing, in good faith, that the defendant has a right or claim to the property.
According to Terry Lenamon, expert Criminal Trial Attorney, the first, and most popular, is the “M’Naghten test.” Lenamon says, “Under M’Naghten, the determining factor is whether or not the defendant was (1) able to understand what he (or she) was doing at the time of the crime due to some “defect of reason or disease of the mind” or, (2) if he (or she) was aware of what they were doing, that he (or she) nevertheless failed to comprehend or understand that what they were doing was wrong” (Lenamon). With that in mind, think about how many inmates have not taken that test and have been wrongly convicted. The American Civil Liberties Union states, “Mental Health America, estimates that five to ten percent of all death row inmates suffer from a severe mental illness.” Furthermore, if these people could get tested, they would realize how many people are legally insane and do not deserve to be in jail, but rather a hospital. Consequently, some of the individuals sitting on death row may
Appeals Process: Guilty Until Proven Innocent Angela Brown Introduction to the Criminal Justice System November 19, 2012 Prof. James W. Jackson Introduction An appeal is usually filed when a defendant to a case believes that a trial court incorrectly applied the law, or that a finding by a judge or jury is not supported by the evidence. The purpose of an appeal is not to retry the case, but to see if the lower court proceedings were conducted properly. As strange as it may seem, the failure of an attorney to make an objection on the record at a trial can cost a client the right to appeal. A trial counsel's failure to make an objection may be construed as "trial strategy." Good trial strategy often requires attorneys to pick their battles, which may involve refraining from making certain objections.
After which, Boehm initiated criminal bastardy proceedings to enforce the outstanding child support payments. ISSUES: Was the plaintiff’s promise of forbearance from filing of bastardy proceedings against defendant sufficient consideration to uphold the contract? HOLDING: Yes. Forbearance from asserting a good faith legal claim can be valid consideration. Forbearance from asserting a legal claim known to be invalid is not valuable consideration.
Even though Michelle concocted the plan, it was Byrom Jr. who actually committed the murder. Byrom Jr. admitted to committing in several jailhouse letters and, according to court documents, in an interview with a court-appointed psychologist” (cnn.com). In one explicit confession letter to his mother, he detailed how he killed his father in rage after a fight. Because Byrom’s defense attorneys never had the confession letters entered in as evidence, a jury never heard any of Edward Byrom Jr.’s confessions. This meant that without the confessions, Michelle was going to be convicted of the murder.
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.
Clark’s conviction was also sustained by The Arizona Court of Appeals. Accomplice Liability Accomplice liability is the principle that anyone who assists a person in committing a crime should share the same criminal liability under the law. In the case of Clark v. Arizona, Clark acted alone when committing the murder of a police officer. Criminal Liability The principles of criminal liability are what prosecutors need to prove a crime has been committed, beyond a reasonable doubt, also known as the “corpus delicti rule”. When a person commits murder, the prosecution needs prove actus reus, mens rea,