Ilari Pass JPS 200 Fetrow November 15, 2012 UNITED STATES v. WADE, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Billy Joe Wade was indicted and convicted of armed robbery of a bank in Eustace, Texas after two employees from the bank identified him in a lineup. The defenses moved for acquittal, arguing that the lineup was a violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The trial court denied the motion. The Fifth Circuit reversed Wade’s conviction, holding that the lineup in the absence of counsel was a violation of the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Answer questions from p. 351 under “Case Analysis.” Case Analysis 1. Summarize the facts that led to the defendant’s claim that he was subjected to double jeopardy. Facts: October 14, defendant was arrested. On November 5, the United States sought entry of default in the civil forfeiture case. On November 13, defendant pleaded guilty to some of the criminal charges pursuant to a plea agreement.
Most federal law enforcement agencies have instituted a policy that all interrogations of suspects are taped. Thus, it is not impossible to imagine that recording interrogations may soon become standard procedure and widely used (Mnookin,
Case Brief Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda (Plaintiff) v. Arizona (Defendant) Facts: On March 13, 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. At the Phoenix police station he was identified as the perpetrator by a witness. Mr. Miranda was taken into an interrogation room with two police officers and was questioned. At no time was Miranda advised he had the right to remain silent or have an attorney present. Several hours later the police officers came out of the room with a written and signed confession, which contained a paragraph that the confession was made voluntarily with full knowledge of legal rights.
It is the responsibility of the judge to oversee all that goes on within the courtroom and ensure that rights are not violated as well as rule on each case that is put before them. The defense attorneys, prosecuting attorneys, and the public defenders, help paint a picture if you will for the judge of what happened. The judge then interprets the information he or she is given to determine guilt or innocence without bias ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial. The role of the Prosecutor is to
Robert William "Willie" Pickton (born October 26, 1949)[2] of Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada is a former pig farmer[3] and serial killer convicted of the second-degree murders of six women. [4][5] He is also charged in the deaths of an additional twenty women, many of them prostitutes and drug users from Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. In December 2007 he was sentenced to life in prison, with no possibility of parole for 25 years —the longest sentence available under Canadian law for murder. During the trial's first day of jury evidence, January 22, 2007, the Crown stated he confessed to forty-nine murders to an undercover police officer posing as a cellmate. The Crown reported that Pickton told the officer that he wanted to kill another woman to make it an even 50, and that he was caught because he was "sloppy".
He was suspected of being part of the cocaine business. Police officers decided to put a tracking device under Jones car for 28 days. At the Governmental level, the Supreme Court in Washington has made a decision that the police officers have dishonored the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment explains how the amendment protects against unreasonable search
In January of this year, a judge in Luzerne County, Pa., was forced to acquit a man charged with homicide and first-degree murder in the death of a 1-year-old, and declare a mistrial on a number of other counts, after the court found out a juror had independently done online research about injuries sustained by the victim, and possibly offered to share her knowledge with the other jurors.” Imagine letting this happen to thousands of felons and then granting them freedom that they don’t deserve, just because jurors are careless. They are sworn to "to base your verdict solely upon the evidence” which they are not doing and are apparently taking the cases into their own hands and looking for other evidence that most likely is not
We have to make sure that all evidence is brought to court; all witnesses are present; have all the necessary documents needed to prove a guilty or innocent verdict. The jury votes on the guilty or not guilty verdict and it is handed down to the judge to make the final decision. They also conduct a hearing in order to make sure that they are not convicting the wrong person of a crime that maybe he/or she did not commit.
The due process model protects all the rights of everyone, it makes sure that officers have procedures to follow and this model investigates each step of the process closely. Where the crime control model is more likely wanting to forget about individual’s rights, it is more likely to get the case done as quickly as possible with little