The law requires that a statement to be determined as whether it is a fact or opinion, because based on the First Amendment, that “there is no such thing as a false idea”. C. The three terms used by Cole are defamatory in nature since they imply misconduct of an attorney. D. Cole’s claim that the affidavit was “inaccurate” is a fact, and not an opinion, since its falsehood can be determined. E. Cole’s statements were based on undisclosed defamatory facts (unknown communication between Cole and his client) and thus not protected under the First
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.
Paul Yale Mo Hassan Bus 18-80473 7 October 2013 O.J. Simpson Trial Verdict 1) What crimes were committed? The OJ Simpson case was a criminal trial, with two charges of murder to O.J. Simpson, the murder of his ex-wife Nichole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a personal friend of Brown. During the trial, Mark Fuhrman perjured himself on the witness stand, later pleading nolo contendere to a charge of perjury.
CRJ 150 McCleskey v. Kemp The case began with Warren McCleskey, an African-American man who was sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a white police officer during the robbery of a Georgia furniture store. McCleskey appealed his conviction and sentence, relying on the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection to argue that the death penalty in Georgia was administered in a racially discriminatory -- and therefore unconstitutional--manner. Jack Boger, then director of LDF’s Capital Punishment Project, argued the case before the Supreme Court on Mr. McCleskey’s behalf. Joining him on the briefs were Julius Chambers, James Nabrit III, Anthony G. Amsterdam, Deval Patrick, Robert Stroup, Vivian Berger, and Timothy Ford. In support of McCleskey’s argument, LDF presented the United States Supreme Court with strong statistical evidence showing that race played a pivotal role in the Georgia capital punishment system.
There are 60 gangs in the area. The problems in the division became public in 1997 when undercover officer Frank Lyga shot and killed Kevin Gaines, who happened to be off-duty. Kevin Gaines was an African American police officer and Lyga was Caucasian. Lyga’s story was that Gaines had threatened him with a gun and the he shot him in self-defense. His statement was “In my training experience this guy had I’m a gang member written all over him” (pbs.org).
Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought. I. Discuss the evidence to sustain a charge of murder against Deft: To be liable for murder, the element of malice aforethought must be present. The evidence shows specific intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation in several ways. The facts tell us that Deft searched for several months but was unable to find the killer, Deft went to the 38th street pier in search of the killer, and that Deft pulled out a handgun and shot Kyle in the chest.
For a brief description of these films “12 Angry Men (1957)” focuses on a jury’s decision of guilt in a capital murder case. A teenaged Hispanic boy is accused for the murder of his father and is tried in court. If the verdict is determined as guilty an automatic death sentenced will be issued. With the case presented the defendant has stated a weak alibi along with several witnesses claiming to have heard screaming and witnessing the boy fleeing the scene at the time of the murder. The majority of the jurors are leaning towards a guilty verdict.
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.
Despite this, Zenger’s defense found every opportunity to present that truth should be a justifiable defense in a libel case. The defense also argued that free speech was fundamental to a good, successful government. John Peter Zenger was found not guilty of the charges. There is much controversy regarding the importance of the Zenger Affair’s impact on the history of New York. Some say that it was nothing more than an inconclusive political confrontation.
During the late 1970s a number of high profile miscarriages of justice – such as the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four etc – came to light. One of these cases, involving the murder of Maxwell Confait, led to the government setting up the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. Note – Maxwell Confait had been found murdered – strangled by the flex of an electric lamp and then partially burnt as the killer(s) had attempted to cover up the crime. Three boys were convicted of the murder but three years later it was proved that the police had fabricated their confessions. The Royal Commission reported back in 1981 and came to the conclusion that a better balance between bringing criminals to justice and protecting the innocent was needed.