Case Study: Strickland V. Washington

In reference to the Fifth Amendment is the protection from compelled self-incrimination. The five young boys were apparently not aware of this privilege to exercise due mostly to an improper interrogation. It is though law enforcement wanted someone or group of people to answer for these offenses – although, there was no evidence to be found at the crime scene connecting the five boys to the crime. Therefore, under these circumstances, the law is not being upheld. It can be said that even though improper interrogation tactics are prohibited, they still do take

About two weeks later, on May 16th, 1974, members of the SLA are caught stealing ammunition from a local store, Mel’s Sporting Goods in Los Angeles. The members were tackled by store employees when suddenly gunfire came into the store from a van sitting across the street, firing the gun was Patty (White). In August of 1975, the SLA was responsible for the bombing of various government agencies across the state of California. It was becoming more than obvious that she was committing these crimes at her own free will (Orth). Which in turn awards her a spot on the FBI’s top ten most wanted list

The Court noted that future regulation of pretrial stages with the adoption of police codes and other safeguards of fairness might render a stage not critical and vitiate the constitutional need for counsel. Regarding the case at hand, the Court held that violation of the counsel requirement did not necessitate reversal of the conviction. The conviction could be upheld if the prosecution could show by clear and convincing evidence that the in court identification of Wade as the robber was based on the witnesses ' observations of him during the crime. The Court vacated the decision of the Fifth Circuit and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. In response to Wade, police departments began to enact regulations to ensure the presence of defense counsel during lineups.

In January 1983, he followed Sutcliffe into the recess of F2, the hospital wing at Parkhurst Prison and stabbed a broken coffee jar twice into the left side of Sutcliffe 's face, creating four wounds that required 30 stitches. Another incident on 23 February 1996, Sutcliffe was attacked in his room in Broadmoor Hospital 's Henley Ward. Paul Wilson, a convicted robber, asked to borrow a videotape before attempting to strangle him with the cable from a pair of stereo headphones (Wiki). Two other convicted murderers, Kenneth Erskine and Jamie Devitt, intervened on hearing screams. The last attack was by a fellow inmate, Ian Kay, with a pen on 10 March 1997, Sutcliffe lost the vision in his left eye, and his right eye was severely damaged.

Based on the reasoning of the caliber of Officer Steele’s moral standards as applied to his civic duties, administration could have prevented this situation by not hiring someone possessing traits that might indicate such unethical behavior. Steele should have been held accountable by the department’s administration for withholding information from the prosecutor regarding the detainment of R.M. while in detention. The lack of team- policing would have restricted Steele’s opportunity to abuse the powers governed to him as a law

The Beltway Snipers were a series of coordinated shootings that took place over three weeks in October 2002 in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C. Ten people were killed and three other victims were critically injured in several locations throughout the Washington D.C., metropolitan area and along Interstate 95 in Virginia. The rampage was perpetrated by John Allen Muhammad (then aged 42) and Lee Boyd Malvo (then 17), driving a blue 1990 Chevrolet Caprice sedan. Their crime spree began in February 2002 with murders and robberies in the states of Alabama, Arizona, Florida,Georgia, Louisiana,Texas, and Washington which resulted in seven deaths and seven injuries, bringing the ten-month shooting spree total to 17 deaths and 10 injuries. The first killing was on October 2 2002 at 5:20 p.m. A victimless shot was fired through a window of a Micheal Craft STore in Aspen Hill, About an hour later, at 6:30 p.m., James Martin, a 55-year old program analyst at NOAA, was shot and killed in the parking lot of a Shoppers Food Warehouse grocery store, located in Glenmont.

The defense attorney tried to dismiss the claim and continued to questioned the witness. The exchange between the witness and defense attorney appeared unprofessional as both parties began to use informal terminology and debated over the interpretation of several instances. The defense attorney believed that all emails mentioned the sporting events of the sons while the witness argued that there was direct no correlation to child visitation and therefore violated the previous court order. Their disagreement over semantics seemed to unsettle attorney Lengen and he intervened in their

A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.

ISSUE: Should Appellant Jewell have been convicted of possessing a controlled substance despite no positive knowledge of such possession, where Appellant had a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth? RULING: Yes. Trial court conviction was affirmed. Dissent by: KENNEDY,Circuit Judge, with Judges Ely, Hufstedler and Wallace. RATIONALE: The legal premise of the jury instructions was sound.

Why would Cash just sit back and stay quiet while this crime was going on? I believe that Cash thought if he notified the police, that he would be sentenced to jail for be a part of the crime, he was frightened, in my eyes, however, he tells later that he saw this felony taking place, yet still did not receive any punishment, which puzzles me. My other theory is that he simply wanted to protect his

The case of Skinner v. Oklahoma was argued on May 6th, 1942 and decided on June 1st, 1942. The Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act provided sterilization for a man or woman crimes involving “moral turpitude.” Oklahoma defined a "habitual offender" as someone who had been convicted two or more times which amounted to felonies involving moral turpitude and in result was sentenced to imprisonment. In this case, Jack T. Skinner had been convicted of three crimes, one for stealing a chicken and the other two for armed robbery. While serving his third conviction, The Oklahoma Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act passed and the state of Oklahoma planned to carry out sterilization on Skinner. The state of Oklahoma claimed that Skinner’s crimes involved moral turpitude but Skinner challenged this by stating that this act was unconstitutional.

She is being tried for first degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child, and four counts of providing false information to police. Around two months after being indicted on those charge’s police found Caylee Anthony body in a wooded area near her mother’s home. Some key professional courtroom actors were Anthony’s lead Defense Attorney Jose Baez whom represented her, Judge Belvin Perry whom presided over the case, and the Prosecuting Attorney Jeff Ashton. The Casey Anthony trail was very publicized there were a lot of nonprofessional participants inside of the courtroom such as the defendant herself Casey Anthony, key witness and other spectators. Also the jury of 12 members seven women and five men was chosen ten days before the trial began were present.

I ask that you not build up any prejudice towards my client as I want him to have a fair and just trial. I would also ask that you reject the defense theories of the case. The defense will try and build up Mr. Gotti as a man of unfortunate circumstances. They will try and convince you that he came from a poor family and had no choice but to resort to crime, in order to provide for himself and his growing family. Those facts are irrelevant to the fact that my client is dead and has a wife with no husband and children with no father.

The U.S. criminal justice system should not be allowed to used jailhouse snitches or informants, because this is at a disadvantage to defendants. This practice should not be eligible to be used for all types of crimes. To see justice done in any country, one must make sure that everyone gets a fair and impartial trial out of the system. If we disagree with prosecutors using snitches, then defense attorneys will be held up to the standards as well. If the defendant is innocent, defense attorneys need not to be worry to pay for testimony from jail inmates.

The court decided that the word used against plaintiff needs to accuse him of committing an actual crime or moral turpitude. The Moore statement, accusing Karpinski of dishonesty, does not construe any allegation to a specific crime or moral turpitude, and the court will unlikely consider Moore statements as a slander per