On Jan. 4 this year, a warrant was issued for Bond’s arrest after he was charged with assault with a deadly weapon doing great bodily harm. John Hicks, a family friend for 25 years, stood with Rivera outside the crime-scene tape and talked about Bond. “He told me they’d have to kill him before he’d go back to jail,” Hicks said. Diaz said his officers had been looking for Bond and found him at his mother’s home. Officers had been watching the residence, and about 2:45 p.m. Saturday, Bond left on his bicycle.
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.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
MIDTERM 1 Running Head: MIDTERM Midterm Project Search and Seizure Linda Branstrom Kaplan University CJ 299: Associates Capstone in Criminal Justice Professor Terry Campbell April 22, 2012 MIDTERM 2 Abstract It is firmly ingrained in our system of law that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject to only a few specifically established exceptions. The courts have outlined a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement including but not limited to, consent searches, searches of vehicles and, inventory searches. One exception the court has expressly and repeatedly refused to recognize is a general
DB Forum 3 My Case study MT. MORRIS TOWNSHIP, Mich. (ABC)- A 6 year-old boy accused of a fatal shooting of a classmate at Elementary school near flint, Mich., is too young to face criminal charges, persecutors said. Instead, persecutors will focus on how the child got the gun used in the killing, which may have occurred as a result of a playground scuffle. We’re looking to see how the kid got that gun and if we get to that person we will prosecute them to the Fullest extent of the law, Genesee County Prosecutor Arthur Bush told ABCNEWS, GOOD MORNING AMERICA. When Tamarla Owens’ 6 year-old son shot a classmate early this year in Flint, Mich., many wondered Just how that child could become a killer.
O’Mara and Elliot both were charged with attempted cross burning and conspiracy to commit cross burning. O’Mara pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a jail time of 90 days and was fined $2,500. Elliot was found guilty by the jury of attempted cross burning as well and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and a $2,500 fine. This Court case was decided on Monday, April 2, 2003 with 2 votes for the Virginian Law, and 2 votes against it. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented the judgment saying, “Cross-burning itself should be a First Amendment exception, as others have argued regarding flag-burning.
His three sons plotted to break him and his cellmate, Randy Greenawalt, out of prison. On July 30, 1978, the sons entered the prison for a visit, taking advantage of a policy that allowed an informal picnic setting for weekend family visits, carrying an ice chest packed with revolvers and sawed-off shotguns. [1] One of them aimed a sawed-off shotgun at a lobby guard. Greenawalt helped in the escape by cutting off telephones and alarm systems. [2] They escaped in Donald Tison's 1969 Lincoln Continental, but the next day, one of the Lincoln's tires blew out on a stretch of road not far from the California border, near Quartzsite.
After the local Florida Circuit Court in Broward County issued the injunction, the decision was appealed to the United States District Court for Southern Florida where the Court ordered the sheriff to stop enforcing the injunction, but did, in fact, rule that the music was obscene, especially the song "As Nasty As They Wanna Be." The sheriff appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, in Atlanta. Issue Is this music obscene under Florida state law and/or federal Constitution? Holding/Decision No Rule Obscenity must meet three part rule. Based on Supreme Court case Miller v. CA.
On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and that violated the Eighth Amendment. The District Court of Appeal of Florida disagreed. It held that Graham’s sentence neither was a facial violation of the Eighth Amendment nor constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2012 that juveniles convicted of murder cannot be subject to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.