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.
Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. When police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time perhaps “three to five seconds” before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. At trial Hudson argued that police violated the knock and announce requirement, therefore all the evidence stemming from the search warrant should be inadmissible. The Trial Judge granted the motion to suppress the evidence. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress.
If the Florida HIV laws are outdated, then the diagnosis of an HIV infection is no longer tantamount to a death sentence. 1. In 1997, Florida passed a law that makes it a felony for someone who is HIV positive to engage in any form of sexual intercourse without providing the partner with that information. 2. Failing to inform your partner that he/she is HIV positive with whom you are having sexual relations with in the state of Florida results in being charged with first degree murder.
Terrance Taylor ADJ 4 Oliver Thompson 4-2-11 Terrancetaylor32@yahoo.com 951-316-2072 Case Law Oliver Thompson was arrested for 459 pc- Burglary of an inhabited dwelling, 12964 Bordeaux Court, Moreno Valley, CA. He was arrested March 27, 2011, and his bail was set at 50,000. Upon his arrest, Oliver was searched and a hand gun with altered numbers, and a silencer was found on him. 459 pc is burglary, which is entering a structure with the intent to commit a felony once inside. All though burglary is referred to as “breaking and entering,” prosecutors can charge you with this offense even if there is no forced entry of the structure.
The case that I will be writing a brief on is the case DICKERSON v. UNITED STATES, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). In this case, Charles Dickerson, the petitioner, confessed to committing a crime during his questioning by law enforcement. The petitioner motioned to the court that his confession was obtained by his law enforcement officer before being read his Miranda rights. Subsequently, “[t]he District Court granted Dickerson’s motion and suppressed the statement as evidence, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (the “Fourth Circuit”) allowed the statements into evidence.”(casebriefs) Ever since the case Miranda v. Arizona was heard in 1966, “Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.” (Samaha, J.) Chief Justice William Rehnquist referred to the Miranda case during the ruling of the 2000 Dickerson v. United States.
However there was never conclusive evidence that would prove Sheppard to be guilty or innocent. Evidence nevertheless leans toward Sheppard being not guilty. Evidence such as DNA found at the crime scene not matching that of Mr. Sheppard, the lack of motive, and a different man, Richard Eberling, confessing to committing this crime. Evidence such as this signify the innocence of Sam Sheppard and prove that he in fact did not murder his wife. The first solid piece of evidence that delineates Sheppard’s innocence is the DNA evidence and blood spatter analysis that was found at the crime scene.
Criminal Procedure Probable Cause Article Summary Sherita Burress CJA/364 November 21, 2011 Maxine Craig Supreme Court Is Unsuccessful In Defining “Probable Cause In Belief Of Guilt The Supreme Court decided a case on December 15, 2004, holding a law enforcement officer accountable for arresting an individuals for having merchandise in the car that he was riding in. It was stated that the merchandised belonged to neither the passenger or the driver of the vehicle that it was found in. This well known case is the case of Maryland v. Pringle, 124 S.Ct. 795 (2003), a solid decision of the Court. In the course of finding this case, the Maryland court was held accountable for not holding the police at fault for violating the
It is supported through murder of Mr. Were where the judge of the case accused the state of trying to cover up the murder by “cover up the DNA test results”( Judge Accuses State of Cover-Up in Were Murder) Also in the case of James (Whitey) Bulger was a big time crime lord but by being an “informant….government did not vigorously pursue during his trial” (Seelye, Katharine Q) Both of the stories had ways where their connections that allowed them to not be prosecuted for a certain period of time. Though in the Bulger case his connections in the CIA granted him immunity ran out as, he was then charged with all the murders that he committed over 50 years ago. Money and connections can only get you so far. The president used his connections to not be prosecuted what he thought was indefinitely was soon found out by Elise.
Scenario One: Can Ken be convicted of a homicide offense? Explain and justify your answer. Ken can be convicted for a couple different homicide charges in this case and in this paragraph. One of the homicide offenses they can be charged with is reckless homicide code 0142 this would be the charge if Ken had accidentally disclosed the information. Another charge that Ken can be tagged with is first degree homicide code 0110 if it is found that Ken willfully and premeditated doing it.
In the case of ‘State of Florida v. George Zimmerman’, a man named George Zimmerman murdered a 17 year old boy and the jury had found him completely innocent. This meant that he wasn’t even convicted of manslaughter. Of course, the public was upset about this decision (Novograd et al.). If the Crown attorney’s had of tried to strike a deal with him to lessen the charges of first degree murder to manslaughter and Zimmerman agreed to this, then he’d been at least be found guilty of manslaughter. Instead, he’s walking free with the rest of us.