They argued, however, that because Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction. Miranda then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed his case in 1966 (Miranda v. Arizona). Decision The Warren Court argued February 28 – March 2, 1966 Did not decide until June 13, 1966 There were 5 votes for Miranda and 4 votes against Chief Justice Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because “the police had failed to first inform
The first issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charges of murder or manslaughter against Deft. Murder is a homicide committed with malice aforethought. Malice can be found by (1) specific intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation, (2) intent to cause grave bodily injury, (3) wanton and willful disregard for human life (“depraved heart”), or (4) felony murder. The defendant’s acts must be the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s death. Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought.
Furthermore, they stated that the act of crashing into the White’s car was not the “proximate cause” of the injuries to the plaintiff and the death of her husband but rather the result of a criminal act by Mr. Hard. The defendants believe there are no disputes of the material facts in the case and ask that the Court grant their motion The Appellee’s lawyers in this case, believe that Mrs. White was injured and her husband, Bruno White was killed when the vehicle driven by her ex-fiancée, Edward Hard, crashed into their vehicle. The State of Indiana requires that a plaintiff meet the following elements in order to recover damages: the defendant must have actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverage was furnished, and the intoxication of the person to whom the alcoholic
The LAPD violated the 4th Amendment when they searched O.J’s house without a search warrant. People believed that they did this in order to take action immediately and plant evidence which would help convict O.J. Mark Fuhrman, the head detective at LAPD in charge of the investigation, was questioned about the planting of evidence at O.J’s residence, pleading the 5th Amendment. In other words, he refused to respond to the questions given to him and chose to exercise his constitutional right to not speak. As an addition to O.J’s defense, Simpson's attorneys questioned Fuhrman about his alleged prior use of racist terms.
The one thing both these laws have in common is that they both try to control the behavior by imposing sanctions on those who violate the law. In the case of O.J Simpson, he was charged with the murder of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and found liable for the wrongful deaths of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Under the criminal law, O.J Simpson pleaded 100 % not guilty for these two counts of first degree murder. During all the criminal proceedings there was plenty of evidence that pointed the finger to Simpson. In the end Simpson was acquitted for the murders of Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
2003. p. 114). The prosecutor’s main roles are to establishing that those guilty are prosecuted, and to determine which cases are weak and weed them out. Meyer & Grant (2003) state that, “ the tasks that prosecutors perform fall into three broad categories: planning and supervising the investigation phase of criminal and civil cases, case preparations, and responding to the issues related to appeals. The defense attorney’s role is to protect an individuals right when he or she has been accused of committing a crime, and to ensure that the individual is not prosecuted unjustly or falsely tried. A prosecutor presents evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime and the defense attorney tries to prove that the defendant is not guilty.
Stanford v Kentucky was a United States Supreme court case that dealt with the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least sixteen years old at the time the crime was committed. Stanford was 17 years old at the time he committed murder in Kentucky. On January 17, 1981, Stanford and an accomplice repeatedly raped and sodomized twenty year old Barpel Poore during and after their robbery at the gas station Poore worked at. Hearings were held to decide on whether Stanford’s case should be held in Juvenile court or adult. The juvenile court did make the decision to transfer his case, therefore; Stanford would be trialed as an adult under a state statute permitting such action as to offenders who are either charged with a class A felony, capital crime or anyone over the age of sixteen and charged with a felony.
If the criminal is charged and tried for murder, but found innocent, then he or she cannot be charged with a reduced offense for the same crime, such as a serious assault. This is called double jeopardy. The Fifth Amendment promises that no one will be made to incriminate him or herself. When someone says they are pleading the fifth, it means they are refusing to answer the questions because he or she would incriminate himself or herself. No person has to incriminate themselves.
It was proved that the defendant was guilty of rape by his dna, also the fact that he was menacing people with a shotgun, which is how the taking of the DNA came about to prove him guilty of rape. Accomplice liability does not apply to this case; accomplice liability allows the courts to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by another person. If a person aids, assist or encourages another in the commission of a crime they are an accomplice to the crime, while the person who actually commits the act is called the” principal”. However, when determining what is accomplice liability and criminal liability a court needs to examine factors and intent of both the principal and the accomplice (www.legalmatch.com). The elements of crime are a series of components that must be present in order for it to be demonstrated that someone is guilty of a crime.
After the Arizona Supreme Court threw out his appeal, Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed the case in 1966 and in a five to four decision ruled that the prosecution could not use Miranda’s confession as evidence in his trial (McBride, 2006). The Supreme Court stated that the confession was obtained unconstitutionally because the police failed to inform Miranda of his rights. Thus, to protect these rights in the face of widespread ignorance of the law, the Court devised statements that the police are required to tell a defendant who is being detained and interrogated (McBride, 2006). These statements are now called the Miranda Rights.