‘Bloody Sunday’, directed by Paul Greengrass, was released in 2002, thirty years after the initial event that occurred in Derry on the 30th of January, 1972. The film is a British-Irish co-production by Bord Scannan Na hEireann, also funded by Granada Television, Hell’s Kitchen films and the Portman Entertainment Group, as well as the Irish Film Board. The film won best film at the Berlin Film Festival, as well as a BAFTA Award for Best Photography and Lighting and picked up the British Independent Film Award for Best Director and Actor (James Nesbitt). The storyline uses a historical narrative based on one of the most controversial and well-known historical events that took place during the ‘troubles’ when a civil rights protest organised
District of Columbia v. Wesby 583 U.S.___ (2018) Procedural HISTORY The district court said the police officers did not have the right to make an arrest because they were invited to someone and lacked evidence to prove that she didn’t have permission to be there. They said that the police had no knowledge of such. Party goers also had to know they were not supposed to be there. The court of appeals upheld both decisions of the district courts. It made it to the Court of Appeals because of writ of certiorari Key Issues If the police made false arrest?
Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified. In Aguilar v. Texas, it was held that “an affidavit based solely on the hearsay report of an unidentified informant must set forth "some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant was truthful and acting in good faith”. In this case, there was no information availed to the magistrate so as to make independent and reliable conclusion as to the prudence of the unidentified police informant.
Arizona ruling eliminated the fear of the accused from torture and coercion and notified individuals of their rights that they otherwise wouldn’t have known that they had. The ruling explicitly stated that if a person was not informed of their Fifth Amendment right, then compelling pressures could cause a person who otherwise not have spoken, to incriminate themselves (Document J). In the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, it had not specifically stated that a suspect must be informed of their rights before they are questioned. The ruling of Miranda v. Arizona finally cleared up the confusion concerning the rights of the accused and self-incrimination and required officials of the law to read out the warning known as the Miranda warning to anyone they may question. Additionally, manuals such as Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, specified the rules to be used during interrogations to prevent coercion (Document F).
Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 401(a) shows also that it would be immaterial as Mr. Michelson was arraigned with the crime of bribery and not provoking altercations or having ill will is not relevant to the bribery that Mr. Michelson had been charged. Under cross-examination on page 2, line 22 that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 404(b) “That evidence
Although he was not yet placed under arrest, he was being interrogated in a police station and being asked incriminating questions. Any average person, especially a kid, would reasonably believe that they were in police custody. Furthermore, he technically was in custody seeing as he was deprived of his freedom in a significant way, in his case being held at the police department for hours. Therefore, Thomas Cogdell deserved to have a lawyer present during his interrogation. The second of Cogdell’s constitutional rights to be violated involves a case decided before the Miranda case, but is still applicable nonetheless.
Thesis: Police interrogations can occasionally lead to false confessions due to misclassification, coercion, and contamination. I. The phrase “Innocent until proven guilty” is a popular statement among law enforcement and government employees, but this statement is not always upheld, as various errors, such as misclassification, are a major cause of false confessions. A. Misclassification errors are caused by “investigator bias,” where the investigator goes into the interrogation believing the suspect is guilty. (Keene) B.
The defendant appeal and succeeded and the issue was whether the complainant had consented to the risk of the sexual transmitted infection and to whether they knew the defendant HIV condition. Whether the complainant had in fact consented to the risk of the disease and consequently the defendant has a defence to an offence was an issue of fact which was case specific. Owing to those circumstances the conviction the case was ordered for retrial. Mohammed was sentence to consecutive 3 and 4 years. The appeal preferred raise issue of legal and public about the circumstance which the defendant may be found guilty of criminal offense as a result of infecting another
DANIEL COLON CJA 301 MODULE 2 CASE TRIDENT UNIVERSITY The Miranda rights have been established to provide suspected criminals their rights upon being arrested. By being read these rights, the criminals know what they are entitled to, such as the right to remain silent and to obtaining an attorney (Prentzas, 2005). However, in recent years many terrorist suspects have not been read these rights and it has come to the point that many people, lawmakers and officials believe that they should not be entitled to the rights that are drawn out in the Miranda warnings. As these terrorist suspects are innocent until proven guilty, are no different than any other criminals, and have the Fifth and Sixth Amendments backing them up, they should be guaranteed the rights given by the Miranda warnings. The Miranda rights are essentially police warnings given to criminal suspects in custody and at times, before arrest, in the United States of America.
But, the following morning the carcass is discovered on the steps of the mosque and the already tension filled town now erupts. Muslims massacres scores of Hindus and Sikhs, who in turn kill every Muslim they can find. It should be noted that the incidence reflected in this novel are true accounts of the Rawalpindi riots of 1947. Anita Rau Badami’s Can You Hear the Nightbird Call? (2006) is set in India and Canada; and it tells the lives of three women Bibiji aka Sharanjeet Kaur, her niece Nimmo and Lila Bhatt at the backdrop of the Khalistan movement and Operation Blue Star, which led to the assassination of the then Prime Minister Smt.