United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.” (Deuteronomy 19:15). Some eyewitness misidentification can occur because the witness’s go through stress, loss of memory over time and some police procedures can interfere. Jost says, the investing officer who administers a line up or photo array and who knows the identity of the suspect may influence a witness in the
The law applies to 3 convictions, not 3 crimes (i.e. criminals may get away with several incidents). The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. It is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.). Criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions.
However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
Even, though the victim stated several times she was unsure of Bromgard her attacker, he was on trial for sexual intercourse without consent. Bad Lawyering The lawyer for Bromgard proved to be incompetent, by having no open or closing arguments for the case, no investigation ensued, there was no experts hired on Bromgard’s behalf to discredit the state’s expert. Bromgard’s lawyer never filed a motion to suppress the unsure identification of the girl’s testimony. Misleading Expert
The trial court found that it was not, and granted the defendant summary judgment. In this case, John Marhshall was not the proximate cause of the death because Mr. Smith was experiencing psychosis symptoms prior to his death. The other sypmtoms he experienced were only reported to his roomate and not the nurse, therefore the nurse had no idea he was experiencing such issues. Hence, the nurse or the hospital was not the proximate cause of his suicide and may have resulted from several other factors. IV.
If a judge perceives that the plea bargain is too lenient the judge has the right to reject the plea and order of the prosecuting and the defense to renegotiate. Defendants that are pleading guilty as a result of the plea agreement must acknowledge their plea in open court. Defendant who pleads guilty after the plea has been negotiations do not surrender their right to an appeal; their conviction goes to the Appellate Division of Superior Courts. Also if a defendant pleading guilty to a crime
According to the Legal Resource Library, “The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial.” Plea bargaining requires the defendant to waive three rights that he/she is normally protected by until the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. (Cornell.edu) Some people may try to argue that plea bargaining in unconstitutional, however, this argument has been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court. There are a lot of controversial issues surrounding plea bargaining, and victims’ rights groups are arguing that the victim should have inputs and a voice into the bargain that is being established between the prosecutor and the defendant. Victim rights activists also feel that defendants undermine the criminal justice system in its entirety and defendants are let off too
If you are acquitted, it cannot come back for a second bite. (Fitzpatrick) The jury only has one shot at successfully prosecuting the accused person, so the prosecutors must be sure about their case before it even begins. If the police are almost positive that a person committed a crime, but do not have all the evidence to find them guilty, they could waste valuable time trying to gather more evidence. While they try and figure this out, the person could leave the country, or even commit additional crimes. In many cases, people have been free from conviction because the evidence was not strong enough to convict them.
Chapter 12 Peremptory Challenge- A challenge that a party has to eliminate a potential juror, each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges, and it is not required to provide a reason for this challenge, and it may not be used to exclude one gender or race from the jury. Boston vs. Kentucky (1986)- held that prosecutors are barred from using peremptory challenges to remove black jurors because of their race. Challenges for cause- A challenge to a potential juror based on the jurors qualifications or lack of impartiality, (must have a reason) California vs., Green-held that Defendant is entitled to be confronted by the witness against him or her stated by the us Supreme Court. Benefits of being confronted by witness 1. Insures