Officer found that their was sufficient evidence to prove charges. QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether reasonable suspicion existed to permit officers to conduct a brief investigatory stop of the car in which the defendant was the passenger Whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant and his fellow perpetrator planned and intended to kill the victim, and that the defendant’s conduct constituted a substantial step
Tilese Brace Pontier CJ 230-02 March 24, 2012 Bert was sitting in a car with Pratt when Jack approached the car, pointed a gun at Bert and fired, mistakenly killing Pratt. Jack attempted to fire again at Bert, but the gun jammed and would not fire. Jack jumped into his car, put the gun in the glove compartment, and sped off. Jack’s attorney moved to dismiss the charge of the attempted murder of Bert on the ground that Jack could not have killed Bert due to the malfunctioning gun. The court granted the motion.
Ct. 1114 (2007) Issue: Are affidavits and certificates used for state evidence in a criminal case from state forensic analysts testimonial to require confrontation via live testimony under the Sixth Amendment and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)? Holding: Yes Reasoning: The defense claimed that under Crawford v. Washington, the lab reports were testimonial and required the defense to be able to confront the lab tech at trail. The state argued that the lab reports were not testimonial because
I took this information back to my police vehicle, checked out all of his information for outstanding warrants and everything came back fine. Upon coming back to the male drivers car with his information m partner decides that he has a bad feeling about the guy and he wants to search the vehicle. Ultimately my partner orders the driver out of the car so he can search the vehicle, at this point I know the search s illegal because the driver did not give consent and there was nothing in my sight that gave probable cause. After my partners search he found a gun and then arrested the driver stating the gun was in “plain view”. Once at the station the gun was run through the computer and it was found that the gun was used in a murder.
The most popular case that arose from the Fifth Amendment is the Miranda v. Arizona case. Ernesto Miranda testified that his confession to rape was not voluntary, and the Supreme Court found that he had not been warned of his Fifth Amendment to restrain from self-incrimination. The courts require that all suspects must be warned of the following rights, “You have the right to remain too silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him or her present with you while you are being questioned.
Contrast the functionalist and conflict theories of crime. The functionalist would argue that those who transgress are usually dealt with by the law and that order is restored. The conflict theorist would argue that the law enforcement system perpetuates the inequalities and would give the example of how many white-collar crimes go unpunished. Read more: http://www.ehow.com/how_8586125_compare-contrast-functionalist-conflict-theories.html#ixzz2iJlpn5zx Contrast the functionalist and conflict theories of crime. The functionalist would argue that those who transgress are usually dealt with by the law and that order is restored.
In this case, all the prosecution would have to do to convict Larry is to prove that the car used to transport the drugs across the border belonged to him, and of course, that Larry consented to use of his car for the activity. The hearsay exceptions that are most
. . not only must the officer be lawfully located in a place from which the object can be plainly seen, but he or she must also have a lawful right to access to the object itself.’” (Stuckey, Roberson & Wallace, 2006, p 60) Because of the gas tank leak, the officer was lawfully inside of the car, in a position where he could plainly see the gun. He also had a right to the item itself because he had reason to believe that the car may explode and evidence be destroyed. This is covered again under exigent circumstances, which holds that an officer can seize evidence that is about to be
The answer is no. The search was legal and you will be prosecuted for the drugs. Why? Because you “consented” to the search when the officer asked. By consenting, you waive your right to be protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Common-law larceny has been broadened by some statutes to include embezzlement and false pretenses, all three of which are often subsumed under the statutory crime of “theft”. 8. False Pretenses The crime of knowingly obtaining title to another’s personal property by misrepresenting a fact with the intent to