● The exclusionary rule is the main remedy that will be focused on throughout the remainder of this book. It requires that evidence obtained in violation of certain constitutional amendments (notably the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth) be excluded from the criminal trial. Exceptions to the exclusionary rule have been recognized in cases in which (1) the police acted in good faith but nonetheless violated the Constitution and (2) the prosecutor sought to impeach a witness at trial by pointing to contradictions in his or her out-of-court statements, even if such statements were obtained in an
If the person is arrested on suspicious of the murder that would be clearly obvious that the person wouldn’t get the bail, as that person could try to run away also could attempt more murders or even self-harmed. If the person if suspected on something that is not serious for example battery then the person could get a condition bail. Conditional bail is when the suspect person gets some restrictions like; not allowed to go to particular places or have to keep away from victims. Mainly CPS decides whether to grant or deny the bail. A police office officer has the right to grant or deny the bail.
Police Powers in the Public Services P1 – describe the difference between arrest with and without a warrant M1 – explain the requirements of lawful arrest and detention D1 – evaluate the powers of arrest, detention and search There is a legal right that allows UK citizens to arrest another person. This law is given under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 1984. In order to carry out a citizen’s arrest, there are certain rules that say when you can and cannot make an arrest. If you have suspicions that someone has committed a crime, these suspicions are not enough, no matter how strong they are. You could find yourself getting into trouble with the police if you carry out an arrest that is incorrect.
If Joe Justice wants to get the deal done with Jim Lawbreaker, what options does he have in terms of bringing charges against him? I am not sure about the options the Joe Justice has regarding making a deal with Jim Lawbreaker, I think that the one of the charges would be accessory to commit a crime, and since he wasn’t the main character in the robbery and I think that in order to get to the main culprit the deal that Jim Lawbreaker attorney is offering is fair since the results of the lab tests are incomplete and a statement from Jim will help the prosecutor make sure that Martin goes to jail for the crime. The evidence does not place Lawbreaker on the scene and no witnesses can place him there either. 2. Does Joe Justice have enough evidence to take a case against Slick Martin to grand
A plea bargain can help a prosecutor by it saves the court valuable time for high-priority cases. Also it can help a prosecutor because then don’t have go through a trial if they have a lot of other cases. A plea bargain can also help a prosecutor because if the defendant takes the deal it shows that they are taking responsibility for the crime. When it comes to the defendant a plea bargain can help by the defendant could get a lesser sentence if they plead guilty to the crime the committed. Also it can help the defendant by not making them sit though a trial.
Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place. Often times the prosecutor is viewed as being on the side of justice and as a result it is difficult for the defendant (who is accused of a crime) to turn the tide against the prosecution. Although during the trial both the defense as well as the judge may report a prosecutor for misconduct, this rarely happens as these reports are often dismissed. This is because as long as the prosecutions misconduct does not affect the outcome of the case, then it is tolerated, meaning that a prosecutor can harass a witness or the defendant so long as the harassment did not have anything to do with the outcome of the trial. The fact that the prosecutor works in the interests of the state can be seen as the underlying factor here.
Running head: Armington / Double Jeopardy Armington / Double Jeopardy Paula Ahl Kaplan University LS311: Business Law 1 Professor Allen January 20, 2013 Armington / Double Jeopardy In the case of Armington who while robbing a drugstore, shot and injured Jennings, the drug store clerk, was convicted in criminal court of armed robbery and assault and battery. Later Jennings filed a civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington stated that according to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution he could not be tried again for the same crime because this would be double jeopardy. As stated in our text “double jeopardy is defined as being tried twice for the same criminal offense” (Miller & Jentz, 2008). However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137).
Fourth Amendment Rights and Terry Stop Kathy Thomas CJL 2134 Criminal Procedure and the Constitution November 03, 2012 Do an Internet search and find a criminal procedure case that relies on the precedent set in Terry v. Ohio. Thoroughly explain the case and state exactly what the court in the case stated about Terry v. Ohio. The case must specifically cite Terry v. Ohio. Illinois v. Wardlow The defendant William Wardlow was stopped and frisked after looking at two police officers and then running from them in an area known for drugs and trafficking. The defendant was acting nervous with an evasive behavior and he was in a high crime area.
Aaron Hernandez was charged with murder and two lesser offenses in the June 2013 murder of Odin Lloyd, when his body was found near Hernandez’s house. The Incriminating Evidence in the arraignment, were text messages from Hernandez and a supposed surveillance tape from Hernandez's home of Hernandez holding a gun while saying "You can't trust anyone anymore" before getting in his car to pick up Lloyd were described as crucial pieces of evidence. Also central to the case is apparent surveillance footage and the curious deletion of certain footage from Hernandez's house, as well as statements from witnesses who saw Hernandez as angry with Lloyd. Although prosecutors have apparently not found the gun used to kill Lloyd, the prosecution has Hernandez linked to a shell casing that matches the caliber of bullet used to shoot Lloyd. The link was through a piece of bubble gum that purportedly Hernandez chewed and was found next to the casing.
I think this law is somewhat ok, maybe not the execution part, I do think a thief should pay for what they stole or give it back or if they don’t do either of those 2 things they should go to prison, I don’t think the person should be executed for that particular crime, so to me this law is somewhat good somewhat bad. I think this law could be used today in a way, like say if someone steals something from someone and the police catch them, they can give them 3 choices, 1. Pay the person you stole from the value of what you stole, 2. Give the object back, Or 3. Go to prison, I do not think that a person should be killed for stealing though thats a little too harsh for this particular