Subsequent to the prosecution putting on the total of its evidence, the defense attorney will customarily ask for a dismissal of the charges due to lack of sufficient evidence. It is the prosecutor’s job to present sufficient evidence to establish the elements of the crime. The court does not
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
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). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
Issues: The issue is whether or not the prosecution violated the petitioner’s due process rights when evidence was withheld by the prosecution that would be favorable to the defendant. Secondly, where the limitations placed on the trial for punishment only a due process violation? Decisions: the Supreme Court rule the petitioners due process rights was violated when the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence that would be beneficial to the defense of the petitioner. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that would benefit the defense. When the prosecution failed to disclose the document of the accomplice’s confession they violated the petitioner’s right to due process.
United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
What steps must be taken to prove insanity? When the defense claims that their client was not in a state of understanding for what he or she did due to mental disorder is often known as the insanity defense. This is to show that the defendant was unaware at what he or she was doing and should not be held accountable for the alleged actions. In this particular case the term insanity is used more legally than medically, so it is the court’s decision on if there should be a medical professional involved or not. Stu Dents was charged with homicide, kidnapping, assault of a police officer, burglary, and crimes related to drugs.
The results, of the crime control model are wrongful convictions, being over-turned and this is a major downfall in the criminal justice system. On the other hand the due process model is more concerned with the structure and the efficiency of the law. The due process focuses on evidences and facts in a case and ensures that a person in innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. In addition the due process model goal is the prevention and the elimination of crimes within the criminal justice
Critics believe modern law is more concerned with the consequences of crime and less with the moral imperatives. [3] When a crime is committed the person should be convicted. Mental illness could be taken into account at the time of sentencing. Several states have accepted this reasoning, the insanity plea is abolished and replaced with guilty but insane. This verdict carries a criminal penalty, the defendant is sentenced to a hospital prison and the defendant must prove he is no longer dangerous or mentally ill. Advocate of the insanity defense believe that a fundamental principle of criminal law is a stake.
The presiding judge during trial found out that Apprendi fired shots to a neighboring house as threats to leave the neighborhood. As the judge’s final decision and consideration of Apprendi’s actions to be a hate crime gave the judge notion of a severe sentence in prison. The high court’s decision to overturn the sentence was in favor of Apprendi’s Sixth Amendment right of due process to trial by jury and evidence has to be admitted in court through process to the jurors. A judge imposing sentencing must not consider facts unable to provide to the jury is against the federal
ROLE OF THE TRIAL JUDGE Is the Case an Appropriate One for Punitive Damages? It is the responsibility of the trial judge, in the first instance, to determine whether the case is appropriate for punitive damages, i.e. whether the question of punitive damages will be submitted to the jury.' The main focus of that determination is the nature of the defendant's conduct. The trial judge looks for evidence that the defendant acted intentionally, outrageously, recklessly or with conscious disregard for the rights of others.