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
An example of due process would be Miranda Rights, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” These rights are intended to protect the arrestees Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions (Clark, R. 2013). In most cases, after a person has been arrested emotions and adrenaline can play a huge factor in their decision making, resulting in a false statement or confession.
October 2, 2012 Case Brief Cupp v Murphy 412 U.S. 291 (1973) Facts: Daniel Murphy was convicted of murdering his wife in the second degree. After he found out of the murder he called the police and voluntarily submitted himself to questioning. In the middle of his questioning the police noticed a dark spot on his finger and they asked if they could get a sample and he refused. The police did not respect his wishes and they took the sample anyways of what was under his fingernail. They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim.
Nora Monval Professor Palencik Humanities: Philosophy William C. Heffernan Dilemma William C. Heffernan is a prosecutor presented with the case of an alleged murderer. There are two witnesses who claim that the defendant killed the victim, but the defendant claimed that he was simply defending himself and it just so happened to end in the victim’s death. The trial judge denied the defendant an instruction to the jury concerning the use of deadly force. At the end of the trial, the jury’s verdict was that the defendant was guilty of first-degree manslaughter. Heffernan agreed strongly with the jury’s decision.
This allows the client and the attorney to communicate openly and ensures that confidentiality is preserved (Natoli, 2013-2014). The exceptions provided in Rule 1.6 cover the potential loss of life, property, and reputation but no provision is made to expressly prevent an innocent person being imprisoned. Massachusetts has interpreted the ABA MRPC and made such a provision. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.07 states, “a lawyer may reveal, and to the extent required by Rule 3.3, Rule 4.1(b), or Rule 8.3 must reveal, such information: (1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS JUVENILE BRANCH IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO. JUDGE MAGISTRATE MOTION TO SUPPRESS IDENTIFICATION Now comes the defendant, by and through counsel, and respectfully moves that this court suppress identification of the defendant as it was secured through an unnecessarily suggestive showup confrontation. The evidence will show that this identification procedure violated the defendant's due process rights. This motion is supported by the attached memorandum. Respectfully submitted, MEMORANDUM On ______________, 199_, police officers arranged for a (witness) (witnesses) (witness or witnesses) to view the defendant without any other suspects
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent.
The free and voluntary rule comprised of the 14th Amendment due process clause the Fifth Amendment clause, the prevailing test representing the law of confessions. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) represents a case law entailing each of the abovementioned amendments in which a suspect not read their rights before questioning would have their case dismissed due to evidence obtained illegally. In addition, if read their Miranda rights and refused enables them to utilize the fourth amendment protection against incriminating themselves. In addition, the defendant typically guaranteed a court appointed attorney. The confession if given upon analyzed to determine if the confession passes the voluntariness test (Soree,
The detective shows up at the place where the alleged rape happened. The detective takes the statement of a witness that saw a man running from the alley. He then would walk through the scene searching for any evidence that may be available to find the person who committed the crime. The victim was taken to the hospital already and is being evaluated by medical professionals. At the scene the detective finds torn par of underpants with white residue on them.