The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner... the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.
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,
Judge Fletcher calls Slick’s case. A request is made to have counsel appointed to Slick. Judge Fletcher is told that Slick has no means to pay for an attorney on his own B. Questions 1. Prior to appointing counsel, what needs to be read out loud in open court?
“Brainwashing is the application of specific and identifiable techniques that are intended to, and do, undermine an individual’s ability to reason and impair his capacity to exercise an informed consent and replaces those functions with indiscriminate and unconditional obedience to the commands of a single leader,” as stated by Ford Green who was the attorney in Molko, (1190). Brainwashing theories have had different levels of success in the court systems. To see this, we can compare Merone v. Holy Spirit Assn., 125 Misc. 2d 1061, 480 N.Y.S. 2D 706 (1984); Turner v. Unification Church, 602 F.2d 458 (1979); Lewis v. Holy Spirit Assn., 589 f. Supp.
Third, the defense presents that the defendant was being interrogated. For these reasons, the defense will prove why Mr. Vega’s bracketed statement should be considered inadmissible within the court. Just because the contact between an officer and suspect begins as voluntary, doesn’t mean it remains that way. A change in circumstances can transform a voluntary conversation into custodial interrogation, as per the ruling in People v. Aguilera. This is what happened during the interaction between Adrian and Officer Wright.
If judge believes prosecution failed to establish guilt of defendant, judge should enter a directed verdict of acquittal. Hung jury-A jury that cannot agree on a verdict Mistrial- occurs when or because of an event the judge concludes that a fair trial in impossible To make an appeal there must have been a mistake made in trial Sentencing- retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, specific deterrence, General Deterrence, rehabilitation Sentence the criminal for deterrence then rehabilitate them (Know the meanings) Chapter 17 Collateral proceedings- refers to those proceedings that are not part of the normal judicial process involved in the conviction, sentencing, or acquittal of a defendant, but that are necessary part of the criminal justice system.(ex. Extradition and writs ,Interstate extraditions, International extraditions, writ of habeas, writ of certiorari) Writ of habeas corpus- also called the great writ. Purpose is to obtain the prompt release of one who is being unlawfully detained. Writ of certiorari-granted by a state supreme court to review a lower court’s decision in order to establish guidelines to be followed in future
They let them know if there is enough information and evidence to charge a suspect with the crime. They also determine what charges will be filed against the offender, interview witnesses, review search warrants, and subpoena witnesses. In preparation for trial should a plea bargain not be offered or accepted. When and if the case goes to trial, they represent the government in pretrial hearings and motion procedures, enter into plea-bargain negotiations with the defendant and his or her counsel. The prosecutor will try the actual case, make sentence recommendations, upon the defendant being found guilty, and represent the government in appellate court, should an appeal be filed.
Braithwaite, supra, the Supreme Court held that reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony. The determination is to be made based on the totality of the circumstances as previously indicated in Stovall v. Denno, supra. The factors to be weighed against the corrupting effect of the suggestive procedure are as set forth in Neil v. Biggers, supra, summarized by the court in Manson to include: "...the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness's degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level or certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and confrontation." 432 U.S. 98, 114. Similar standards had previously been adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Lathan (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d
Is Tom Robinson Guilty or Innocent? A trial is all about the evidence and its validness, if the evidence has any doubt that it could be wrong it shouldn’t be in the trial. With this in mind, one could argue that he is not guilty because the lack of evidence. Furthermore, Atticus Finch disproved all evidence of the Tom Robinson trial. Also, you have to factor in the time period of this trial, which was in the 1920’s to the 1930’s.
According to the Legal Resource Library, “The biggest drawback to plea bargaining is for the innocent defendant who decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge in order to avoid the risk that he or she will be found guilty at trial.” Plea bargaining requires the defendant to waive three rights that he/she is normally protected by until the Fifth and Sixth Amendments: the right to a jury trial, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to confront hostile witnesses. (Cornell.edu) Some people may try to argue that plea bargaining in unconstitutional, however, this argument has been repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court. There are a lot of controversial issues surrounding plea bargaining, and victims’ rights groups are arguing that the victim should have inputs and a voice into the bargain that is being established between the prosecutor and the defendant. Victim rights activists also feel that defendants undermine the criminal justice system in its entirety and defendants are let off too