FACTS: 1. Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to murder Mr. Reynolds. At the trial, Mr. Reynolds testified that three men approached him and his wife. 2. One of the men shot Reynolds and who also testified that Coleman put his hands on Mrs. Reynolds.
It is an attorney’s obligation, in fact, to break that attorney-client privilege in order to prevent future harm (Meyer & Grant, 2003). Attorneys may also report intents to commit perjury in order to prevent an act of fraud against a court. These and many other issues are what make the concept of attorney-client privilege so important in regard to the court system. Bibliography
(cnn.com). If she were executed, she would be the first woman inmate to be executed in Mississippi since 1944. Edward Byrom Sr. also abused their son, Jr. starting when he was three years old. The abuse led to mental illness, violent tendencies, etc. Even though Michelle concocted the plan, it was Byrom Jr. who actually committed the murder.
In the trial of Deborah White vs. Patrick Gibbs and Stand Alone Properties, L.L.C., d/b/a O’Malley’s Tavern, both appellant and appellee make striking arguments in reference to their claims. They must convince the judges that they are correct and to choose accordingly using various previous court cases and established state law. The case at hand is complex, as it seems to be based and built on arguments from previous cases. The definition of constructive versus actual knowledge of intoxication is the overwhelming theme and carries throughout the entire proceedings. The decision of whether the appellee had constructive or actual knowledge of intoxication will determine the question of responsibility for the reckless and violent actions of another.
Yet, why does one get away with it and another does not? Depending on the severity of their illness and the intensity of the crime, individuals with a mental illness who commit a crime should not be convicted, but they should be hospitalized if they are a threat to society. The question that most people ask when proposed this question is: who is considered mentally ill? To clarify, there are two prevailing legal tests to determine whether or not a defendant is legally insane. 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).
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.
The “Miranda” warning is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody before they are interrogated, in accordance with the Miranda ruling. Its purpose is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, these rights under the U.S. Constitution, and that they know they can invoke them at any time during the interview. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 17-year-old woman 10 days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against
Judges inevitably make law in a sense whenever they interpret a statute or a piece of delegated legislation. According to the American realist John Chipman Gray (1839-1915), all law is made by judges and even a statute does not actually take effect as law until it is interpreted and applied by decisions of the courts. Judicial legal rules can be made through the operation of precedent. A common law rule is made when the judge justifies his decision on the facts of the case by using an existing legal principle or by devising a new principle or adapting an old one in novel situations. Precedent operates on the basis of judges following previous decisions.
Court History and Purpose Michele A Anderson CJA/224 June 8, 2012 Austin Zimmer Court History and Purpose The American justice system is a complex system that serves a purpose of administering justice and all other legal matters. This paper will examine the court system and its purpose. This paper will describe the dual court system and how it pertains to our justice system. This paper will also examine the role of the early legal codes, common law, and the precedent they played in the development of the court systems. This paper will identify the role of the courts in the criminal justice system today.
Abolishing the insanity plea would stop such things from happening. (Washington Post, John P. Martin, February 27, 1998) The insanity defense has been abused more than being used correctly for years. If the defendant is found mentally ill, the defendant undergoes treatment at a mental institution before the sentence is carried out. (New Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 6, pg 329) One of the most known cases of someone pleading not guilty by reason of insanity would be the John Hinckley trial for shooting President Ronald Reagan. John Hinckley got away with his crime without a scratch.