People v. Poplar Marathon Poplar, the defendant, was charged as an aider and abettor of breaking and entering and of assault with intent to commit murder. He moved for a directed verdict on both charges, claiming that there wasn’t enough evidence to submit the case to the jury. The motions were denied. Poplar was found guilty on both counts by a jury in the Circuit Court, Genesee. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
A motion to suppress the identification was denied at trial, and the petitioner and his companion were convicted for the robbery. Issue Whether the sixth and fourteenth amendment rights to counsel should be applied to identification testimony based upon a police station show up that took place before the defendant had been indicted or charged with any criminal offense? Holding Judgement Affirmed Rationale In United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California, the court had held that at a post indictment pretrial lineup, the defendants have the right to the presence of their attorneys. The court held that since the defendant in this case was not formally charged with a crime when the identification process took place, the rulings of Wade and Gilbert do not apply here. The court ruled that the defendant had no right to the presence
CJUS440-1403A-02 The Laws of Evidence Types of Legal Evidence Phase 1 Individual Project Instruct: S. Jefferson Monday, July 7, 2014 Tammy Wall Case Brief: Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States Brady v. Maryland Facts: Petitioner was convicted of murder in state of Maryland after confessing to being involved in the planning and commission of the crime. Petitioner claims he did not commit the actual murder and should be held less culpable then his accomplice. Defense counsel argued the defendant should not be sentenced to death but should receive a lesser charge of life in prison. Defense counsel requested all accomplice statements prior to trial concerning his confession to the murder. The prosecution turned over the information but withheld one document.
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda (Plaintiff) v. Arizona (Defendant) Facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. At the Phoenix police station he was identified as the perpetrator by a witness. Mr. Miranda was taken into an interrogation room with two police officers and was questioned. At no time was Miranda advised he had the right to remain silent or have an attorney present. Several hours later the police officers came out of the room with a written and signed confession, which contained a paragraph that the confession was made voluntarily with full knowledge of legal rights.
Gilbert W Johnson 03/21/2015 CRJU-2020 Columbus Technical College Furman v Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Facts of the Case: Mr. Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him, he tried to flee and when spotted tripped and fell the gun that was on him at the time went off and killed a resident of the home. “Burglary the criminal offense of breaking and entering a building illegally for the purpose of committing a crime”. “Murder, to kill (a person) in a deliberate and unlawful way”. Furman was convicted of murder but he did not intend to kill the resident during the burglary, but he killed someone during the commission of a felony. Furman intent to burglarize someone home was illegal conduct.
Simpson was acquitted, meaning declared not guilty, for the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. Simpson hired a team of high-profile lawyers spending about three million dollars and over to represent him in the case. The lawyers who represented Simpson are ; F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran Jr, Alan Dershowitz, Carl Douglas, Peter Neufeld, Barry Scheck, Robert Shapiro, and Gerald Uelmen, (edition.cnn.com) who were highly trained in DNA evidence presented in courts. Their job was to find a way to discredit the evidence provided by the prosecutors of Simpson. The lawyers’ main claim was that the Police handled the evidence poorly and that the evidence should be considered invalid and that the police planted evidence that led to the conviction of Simpson therefore he was found a not guilty verdict.
Ms. Petrocelli is contrasting his plea of innocent, by convincing the jury that he is guilty only because he was at the scene during the robbery-homicide was taken place. He is also being charged because he is associated with all three men that were physically involved in the murder of Mr. Nesbitt. This is insufficient evidence to prove that Mr. Harmon is guilty in this case. If this was accurate, then anybody who was at the scene of a crime should also be guilty. There
Physical Evidence and the OJ Simpson murder trial The trial of Orenthal James (OJ) Simpson has often been referred to as the trial of the century. On June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown (OJ’s ex-wife) and Ronald Goldman (friend of Nicole Brown) were brutally murdered outside of Brown’s condominium. The trial was one of the longest running court trials in history, and will forever live on in infamy. Many people believed the evidence against OJ showed an inarguable amount of guilt. The evidence was possibly the largest portion of the trial, but was it handled correctly?
Since murder is a consequence crime, the prosecutors must also show that the act of the accused is a substantial operative cause of the death. Besides the necessary actus reus, the prosecutor also bears the onus to prove mens rea in order to establish the criminal offences. The required mens rea for murder is a direct or oblique intent to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm . Even if no intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, one might be liable for involuntary manslaughter if there is evidence showing either a dangerous act, gross negligence, or recklessness is involved. Currently, there are three partial defenses, diminished responsibility, provocation, and killing in pursuance of a suicide pact, for murder created under the Homicide Ordinance.
 Per the Brady v. Maryland decision, prosecutors have a duty to disclose exculpatory evidence even if not requested. Though it is true that the prosecution is not required to search for exculpatory evidence and must only disclose the evidence it has in its possession, custody or control, the prosecution's duty to disclose includes all information known to all members of its team, e.g., police, investigators, crime lab, etc. In Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that such a requirement follows from constitutional due process and is consistent with the prosecutor's duty to seek justice. A victim is murdered by stabbing and an accused person is arrested for the murder. Evidence includes a knife covered with blood near the victim and the accused found covered in blood at the murder scene by the police.