In addition, the accused have human right sustained by the Constitution of America. This analysis will discuss the history of the Bill of Rights and the 6th Amendment, review the meaning and purpose of the 6th Amendment Right to a speedy trial, and discuss considerations used to assess whether a trial has been ‘speedy’. The Bill of Rights of the United States Government was created to back to the 1790’s.
illiteracy, mental illness etc. These circumstances, outlined in an earlier supreme court case Betts v. Brady, stated the state was not required to appoint counsel to the defendant. Unless there were special circumstances or it is a capital offense. Fortunately for Gideon after he appealed to the Supreme Court through a Writ of Habeas Corpus with a petition for Certiorari, a higher court reviews the decision of a lower one. This ruling overturned and today all defendants are granted counsel in all cases except for minor offenses, such as traffic tickets.
1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”
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.
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?
Criminal Justice Psychologist The psychologist is a vital asset to the criminal justice system. The psychologist can examine victims, police officials and various witnesses thus making them ethically obligated to make the right decisions and evaluations. This essay will discuss the roles of psychologist as they work within the criminal justice system. I will Identify and describe the psychologists’ roles within the criminal justice system as it pertains to the applied scientist, the basic scientist, the policy evaluator, and the advocate.
The legal guideline aims to remind psychologists about their primary obligations as well as rational “precautions to respect the confidentiality rights of those with whom they work or consult, recognizing that confidentiality may be established by law, institutional rules, or professional or scientific relationships.” Maintaining privacy and confidentiality of the defendant facilitate their openness assisting them to recall and relate “pertinent facts and events, including his motives and actions at the time of the offense, and be able to testify in his behalf and to challenge prosecution witnesses.”
The jury was shown videos of more normal times for the family, when things seemed to be going well. Expert testimony also played a role in the outcome of the first trial. The evidence presented in this case was able to help the jury come to a decision when determining Mrs. Yates final
Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos Supreme Court of Texas, 1985 695.S.W.2d 556 [27 Educ. L. Rep. 640] This case examined the constitutionality of the Texas Education Code 21.920 (b) “No Pass, No Play” rule: A student, other than a mentally retarded student, enrolled in a school district in this state shall be suspended from participation in any extracurricular activity sponsored or sanctioned by the school district during the grade reporting period after a grade reporting period in which the student received a grade lower than the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100 in any academic class. The campus principal may remove this suspension if the class is an identified honors or advanced class. A student may not be suspended under this subsection
Throughout the case, Graham’s culpability was questioned multiple times due to the lack of provable and cogent evidence of his crime. For instance, although being a witness, Bernadine Skillerns’ testimony about glimpsing the murderer’s face through “a car windshield...30-40 feet away” was not ample enough to truly blame Graham of the crime ("Executed But Possibly Innocent"). Even more, two other witnesses that allegedly worked in the supermarket described Graham as not being the killer. Moreover, rather perfunctorily, the two witnesses were never “interviewed by Graham's court appointed attorney” ("Executed But Possibly Innocent"). Conceivably, decision-makers and court appointed attorney’s may fall back on conscious or oblivious preferences about who are the most noticeably awful sorts of convicts or who are the more sympathetic convicts, therefore, creating a potential bias system towards one's race.
App. 238, 248 (2008)); Ware v. People’s Counsel for Balt. Cnty., 223 Md. App. 669, 680 (2015) (“In an appeal from a judgment entered on judicial review of a final agency decision, we look ‘through’ the decision of the circuit court to review the agency decision itself.”). Moreover, “Our review of the agency’s factual findings entails only an appraisal and evaluation of the agency’s fact finding and not an independent decision on the evidence.