The Supreme Court put the authority back in the sentencing court’s hands to eliminate the vast disparity between crack and powder cocaine in the sentencing phase. Kimbrough was indicted in federal court in September 2004 in Virginia on four drug-related counts: conspiracy to distribute both crack and powder cocaine; possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine; possession with intent to distribute powder cocaine; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. Kimbrough pleaded guilty to all four counts. Under the statutes that define these respective crimes, Kimbrough faced a sentence of between 15 years and life in prison. Based on the facts Kimbrough admitted the district court computed the applicable range under the federal sentencing guidelines at 228 to 270 months in prison.
Law Enforcement Miranda v. Arizona Deon Parson Law Enforcement Scott White February 10, 2012 Miranda v. Arizona The case that I am going to discuss in this paper is Miranda v. Arizona began on June 13, 1966 witch is about a poor Mexican immigrant by the name of Ernesto Miranda. Ernesto was arrested for kidnapping and raping a young woman. He admitted to the crime after being interrogated by the police for two hours. He was found guilty then appealed his conviction due to the fact he said he didn’t know his fifth amendment that stated he had the right to speak with attorney and so he didn’t self-incriminate his self. The case then went to the Supreme Court.
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.
Decided March 31, 2011 Parties: The State of Washington, Petitioner, v. Tyrone Dentyroll Ford, Respondent. Facts: In August and September of 2006, Tyrone Ford (Respondent), was accused of two counts of Child Rape one in the Second and one in the Third Degree. When he went to trial the jury found him guilty of “Child Rape in the Third Degree as charged in Count Two” (171 Wn.2d 185, STATE V. FORD). But the jury left the verdict for Count One blank and were sent back to reach a verdict. Subsequently he was found guilty on both charges.
A motion to suppress the identification was denied at trial, and the petitioner and his companion were convicted for the robbery. Issue Whether the sixth and fourteenth amendment rights to counsel should be applied to identification testimony based upon a police station show up that took place before the defendant had been indicted or charged with any criminal offense? Holding Judgement Affirmed Rationale In United States v. Wade and Gilbert v. California, the court had held that at a post indictment pretrial lineup, the defendants have the right to the presence of their attorneys. The court held that since the defendant in this case was not formally charged with a crime when the identification process took place, the rulings of Wade and Gilbert do not apply here. The court ruled that the defendant had no right to the presence
Caption: Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U. S. ____ (2015). In this case, Brumfield, the petitioner, wants the United States Supreme Court to review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. Facts: Kevan Brumfield was convicted of murder of Betty Smothers, and was sentenced to death by a Louisiana court. This court decision was made before ruling that the 8th Amendment prohibits execution of the intellectually disabled under Atkins v. Virginia. Using the Atkins Mandate, in State v. Williams (2001), the Louisiana Supreme Court decided a hearing must take place to decide if Williams was actually intellectually disabled.
Hannah Howarth English assessment task Monster by Walter Dean Myers In his recent masterpiece “Monster” Walter Dean Myers brilliantly presents the story of young 16 year old Steve Harmon to uphold and raise his concerns about the mind puzzling Justice System in America and its confusing handling of minors. Walter skilfully questions the barbaric enforcement of the harsh felony murder laws and the courts sentencing of minors as adults in adult incarceration. He uses a variety of techniques to make his audience stop and think whether the American Justice system is doing right or wrong. Steve Harmon is on trial with James King for felony murder from a group robbery in Mr Nesbitts drugstore, Although Steve is not fully responsible
In Cunningham, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Black, ruling that Blakely applies to California's determinate sentencing scheme. After a jury trial, Cunningham was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child in Contra Costa County Superior Court, California. Under California's Determinate Sentencing Law (DSL), the authorized sentences for this crime are either 6, 12, or 16 years. Under the DSL, the judge must conclude first, that there are aggravating facts, and second, that the aggravating facts outweigh any mitigating factors, before imposing the high term. In this case, at a post-trial hearing, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Cunningham's victim was particularly vulnerable and that his conduct was violent, making him a danger to the community.
[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] Medgar Evers Byron De La Beckwith (1963 & 1994) Bobby DeLaughter The assassin was white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a man with an intimidating and violent personality. Beckwith was arrested, tried, and acquitted by an all white jury. Years later, in 1994, Assistant District Attorney, Bobby DeLaughter, reopened the case. This led to a retrial in which the jury convicted Beckwith, 31 years after the act, of assassinating Medgar Evers. The story of Beckwith's second trial is the subject of the 1996 film entitled Ghosts of Mississippi.
He was forcefully removed by police officers and imprisoned based on the provisions of this law. Procedural History - Homer Plessy was arrested and charged with violation of the Separate Cars Act. The ruling Judge John Ferguson found him guilty of such charges. Plessy appealed to the State Court of Louisiana (Ex Parte Plessy, 45 L.A. Ann. 80) where the court upheld the previous ruling.