Blocks Attorney client privilege excludes reliable evidence. Had attorney client privileges not been in place the client would never have told the outright truth to his attorney anyway because they would know that whatever they tell their lawyer could be used to incriminate them in the court of law. It is better that the defendant is allowed to communicate with his attorney in private as to be properly represented and thus make the trial just and fair. Truth seeking is vital to prevent convicting the innocent In the case where the defendant is in fact, innocent the trials in both resolutions would have the same result, and thus reach the same conclusion. The only difference is when the defendant is guilty, meaning that this point
It is the attorney’s job to work in the best interest of his or her client. I believe that it is negligent on the part of the attorney who does nothing to really assist his client looking for a quick solution. Many people are not aware of some repercussions of taking no contest plea agreement. Some result in civil suits where the victim’s family can file suit against the defendant and when presented in front of a jury guilt is not an issue because of the plea. Many jurors will just be focused on the amount of money to award the victim.
Since Mapp and other significant decisions, innocent people have been subjected to fewer unconstitutional searches, not necessarily because the police fear the exclusion of evidence but because of the potential for civil liability, citizen complaints, and the like. The rules of law decided in Mapp v. Ohio relate to the relevant facts in the fact pattern based on the Fourth Amendment violation. Det. Quickdraw is a representative for the government, but he failed to uphold the law by not following the correct criminal procedure for search and seizure. In conclusion, if I were the judge ruling in this case, I could apply the exclusionary rule and any evidence that was obtained during the unlawful search would not be admissible.
If the defendant has committed an either-way offence (s47 abh, theft) it can be up to the defendant which court to be tried in, or if the Magistrates believe it’s too serious for them to deal with, they will send them to the Crown Court. Most defendants chose the Magistrates Court due to the fact that they can only sentence them to no more than 6 months or a £5000 fine so they opt for the shorter sentence or fine but for defendants who believe they are not guilty, they often go to the Crown Court as they might actually find them not guilty so will not be sentenced and is a risk some people will take. They handle preliminary cases in all criminal cases and deal with the entire criminal process in about 95% of all
He had never been in prison and that’s how people would react if they have never been to prison.” Additionally, as Karissa pointed out, how would he be putting himself on a pedestal if he brought awareness to all of his mistakes in the book? Moreover, I think if he put himself on a pedestal, he would not have committed suicide in the long run. I believe Hassine’s response was different because he was educated in law. I am not sure if he had a juvenile delinquent past when he was younger (like Ronald Cotton), but his education of law definitely had an impact on his reaction. Instead of him being angry, revengeful, and hostile; he wanted to be alone (liked being in the hole), absorb everything, and start writing letters to change the horrible prison
It promotes not only a healthy criminal justice system but also a healthy society, where political leaders cannot abuse criminal justice system to silence their opponents. However the use of juries in the criminal justice system may have many problems. Firstly most jurors have little or no training in matters of law. The only legal requirement for a juror is that he knows the facts involved in case being tried. The judge guides the juries in determining the facts they can admit into evidence and the ones they must exclude.
The first time offender might get a second chance with a non-conviction program and be scared straight. The benefits of the bargaining system here are obvious. While most prosecutors do consider victims of the crime in bargaining, it is a case by case basis on whether or not the prosecutor will consult the victim before reaching a bargain with the defendant. It is likely that the bargaining system will continue to be practiced within our criminal system for a long time to come. I disagree with plea bargaining for the fact that if they did something once and get a plea bargain many will think of it as they got away with something, also they may think if they do something again they will think they can get another plea bargain deal.
On one hand, several of the justices feel that there is no need for the constitution to resolve this case; rather current state whistle-blower statutes can handle this. On the other hand, Ceballos’ attorney argued that “when civil service employees witness or investigate police brutality, disaster preparedness failings and corruption, they need the full protection of the law so that ‘they should not be required to tell their supervisors only what they want to hear,’ for fear of retaliation.” (Mears). The Supreme Court is expected to rule in this case around
felonies. Misdemeanors and the kind of things even mostly law abiding citizens run into (parking tickets, speeding tickets, paying taxes late, jaywalking etc) wouldn't count. The reason here is that you want EVERYONE in the country to respect the law - and you don't want a large population in fear of even minor violations. But alas such a reform is far far too radical in today's political climate. (I do support the Startup Visa types of efforts - but I worry that they exclude far too many people - and that innovation comes from the most unexpected places - not just from folks with technology degrees or who have been vetted by venture capitalists) Collapse this post Why Not Let Immigrants Employ Americans?
A various amount of self-defense laws have changed over the years, but none of them have gotten as much attention as the "Stand Your Ground Statute." This law is a very controversial issue because it takes away the, "Duty To Retreat" prior to the use of deadly force for self-defense. This has raised concerns for the public who are not in favor of using deadly force in the first place. While many opponents want to abolish the "Stand Your Ground Statute", I believe that it is an essential law that should be kept in our society in order to protect the innocent people who have no other option than to exterminate the threat he/she, or the family have encountered. (A1): “Stand your ground law” provides protection for the victim who had no other choice than to use deadly force.