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.
A prosecutor presents evidence to prove that the defendant is guilty of the crime and the defense attorney tries to prove that the defendant is not guilty. They ensure that the defendant’s side of the story is heard, counteracts overcharging by the prosecution, and to supply their client with the best defense possible including: “providing legal counsel to client, arguing for legal innocence (not necessarily factual innocence), searching out violations of the defendant’s rights, and arguing for reduced penalties in some cases” (Meyer & Grant, p. 144). A prosecutor is paid by the state and cannot be hired, like a defense attorney, by an individual. They are hired by the public to punish those who commit crimes, in order to
Going before a grand jury is favorable to the prosecutor because the jury only hears what the prosecutor has to say and will then deliberate whether the case should go to trial or not. Before a preliminary hearing ever occurs the prosecutor has to file a complaint within forty-eight hours following the defendant’s arrest. At the preliminary hearing, the hearing judge will seek to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. All of the witnesses are brought to the court and the defense will cross examine the witnesses. During the hearing the defense will motion to suppress any evidence against them that could lead to a guilty plea.
These are the facts of the case: provide background information / overview of the topic / issue (dates, key people, impact on society) give perspective to the side that you are arguing that may appeal to the audience (“Imagine…”) state effects of the issue on history (social, political, economic, military) state the main arguments that you will be presenting (to charge or defend the Prime Minister) offer some challenges / questions to the opposition Today you will be presented with evidence and will hear testimony from my witness, __________________ which will leave no doubt in your mind of the _________________(guilt / innocence) of the defendant. Please find the defendant, _________________________________ (guilty / not guilty).” 5. Your Charge / Your Defence 6. Arguments / Evidence Argument Proving Your Charge Evidence to Prove Your Argument Footnote Instructions 1. 2.
Jury Nullification CJA/344 May 2, 2013 Jury Nullification When juries believe a case is wrong or unjust they may acquit a defendant who has violated a law. This is known as jury nullification. In the United States, jury nullification has been an option for the jury. The jury plays an important role in interpreting and upholding the laws that the American government has outlined. Today’s society finds it necessary question to what range a jury can take the laws of America, change them, and make them their own.
LSTD503 Criminal Justice Process THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE: A NEED FOR CHANGE Sophia D. Flowers-Hollis Spring 2014 The Exclusionary Rule: A Need for Change The exclusionary rule has been a highly debated topic within our legal system as it has come into conflict with potential evidence that could possibly convict an individual to a jail sentence. Those who are against the exclusionary act believe that the act has no power in stopping unwarranted searches anyway and what the rule mainly does is let criminals go. Those who are for the exclusionary rule say that this is a protective right and is a right that is guaranteed to us through the constitution and should never be taken away. I am against the exclusionary rule. My research paper will argue that the exclusionary rule needs to be changed and although it is a right, federal and certain state laws should not be included with the exclusionary rule.
The public needs to get involved more in changing what we all should see are flaws that still remain in the system. The 2004 Crime Victims’ Rights Act started to change the way the courts deal with the victim to a crime. It also opened the door for states to offer further protection to the victims as well. The issues still seem to be with the victim impact statements and what is permissible in court to be heard. The victims aren’t a recognizable party in the sense of a court proceeding.
Allen Charge-In criminal law, an instruction given by a judge to encourage a deadlocked jury to make a renewed effort to reach a verdict. Named after Allen v. United States (1896). attorney-client privilege- is a legal concept that protects certain communications between a client and his or her attorney and keeps those communications confidential.The attorney–client privilege is one of the oldest recognized privileges for confidential communications. [1] The United States Supreme Court has stated that by assuring confidentiality the privilege encourages clients to make "full and frank" disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective representation. A bench trial is a trial[->0] held before
In Japan they have incorporated what is called The Lay Judge Act, “The Lay Judge Act establishes the ground rules by which Japan’s new criminal trials are to proceed. Two categories of serious crime are to be adjudicated in the new trials: offenses punishable by death or imprisonment for an indefinite period or with hard labor, and offenses in which the victim has died because of an intentional crime. The law does not give defendants the right to waive a lay judge panel (this is a sore point with some opponents of the new system who note that criminal defendants in America can waive their right to trial by jury), but it does grant discretion to the court to determine that a case which qualifies for a lay judge trial may nonetheless be heard by a traditional panel of three professional judges, as when privacy issues arise in a sex offense case, or the defendant is a gangster who might intimidate lay judges”. (http://www.japanfocus.org/-David_T_-Johnson/3212). Lay Judges are picked just like jury trial are in America.
If such identifications are excluded, police will begin to use only reliable identification procedures. A wealth of research has been done on why mis-identifications occur and what the best practices are to minimize the possibility of mis-identifications – why shouldn’t we insist that police use these best practices and insist that only reliable testimony be admitted at trial? "An in-court identification of an accused is inadmissible if a suggestive out-of-court identification procedure created a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." In considering whether error is harmless, a case's particular facts must be considered along with various factors including: "the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's