The Sixth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution, the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 and the states’ constitutional or statutory provisions establish the right to a speedy trial of criminal defendants. In particular, the 6th Amendment’s Clause states that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” (Susskind, 1993).While the U. S. Constitution does not provide a precise frame of time, states’ laws specify the time within which prosecution must try a defendant. However, the computations are so complex that cases are rarely dismissed on the ground of violation of the speedy trial right (Shestokas, 2014). In fact, ironically defendants have to demand a speedy trial for these time periods to run and their
COURTS The court system is made up of many operational parts that all work together to achieve an overall goal. For my courtroom observation I have chosen the State of Florida v Casey Marie Anthony trial. This trail took place on the 23rd floor of the Orange county courtroom in Florida which seats about 50 people. Casey Marie Anthony (the defendant) is on trial for the death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Marie Anthony. 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.
Also told the judge, the defense 's argument is not newly discovered evidence and the defense knew of this expert during trial. "There 's nothing new for counsel at the time of trial. As far as presentation at trial, the fact that is may have surprised defense counsel, I think they had time prior to trial to get their expert around. I think they were more so upset because we had the better expert," said Rider-Ulacco. Judge Peter Bradstreet denied the defense request for a new trial.
When the jury trial process is replaced with plea negotiations, we lose trust and reliability in the system. When we give efficiency that the plea bargain has provided power, it comes at a substantial cost. People who are indeed innocent of the crimes they were convicted have now been influenced into pleading guilty for the sake of efficiency. Not to mention the collateral consequences that accompany a person when they plead out. It also undermines the reliability of convictions in general (Gilchrist, 2011).
Florida courts are plagued with too many people appointed or elected who are entrusted with the sole responsibilities of doing out justice in their public official capacity, who often times suffer from the common syndrome of lacking the ability to separate the administration of justice from the imbuing of their very own interest and passion. Court Judges, prosecutors, and even law enforcement officers very often cannot resist the urge to impart their very own passions and interest into the administration of justice. Far too often an individual’s social, background, and even financial status plays a significant role into the courts official’s decisions and administration of justice. The decision to impose a stiff penalty as oppose to showing
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, appellant, Robert Eugene Caldwell (“Caldwell”), was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary. The jury, however, acquitted Caldwell of seven other charges. For each of Caldwell’s conspiracy convictions, he received 15 years’ incarceration with all but five years suspended, and five years of supervised probation. On appeal, Caldwell presents three issues for our review, which we rephrase and reorder as follows: 1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Caldwell’s motions for a mistrial.
Imagine how a court would be run if it was dysfunctional. With many pieces of evidence to solve one problem that can lead to months after months, just to say those words, “guilty or not guilty.” There was one case that caught everybody's attention and became very famous. In 1994, O.J Simpson was accused for brutally murdering his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. He was sentence to court, and it took about 10 months to come to a conclusion as he walked out of court as a freedman.
The respondent then sought collateral relief in the state court on numerous grounds, specifically among them was his assertion that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. The respondent challenged his counsel’s assistance in six respects. He claimed that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a continuance to prepare for sentencing, failed to request a psychiatric report, failed to investigate and present character witnesses, failed to seek a pre-sentence investigation report, failed to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge, and failed to investigate the medical examiner’s reports or cross-examine the medical experts. The respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court seeking relief on numerous grounds, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors.
Holmes County Assistant Prosecutor F. Christopher Oehl said he did not oppose concurrent sentences only because a guilty plea resulted in more efficient use of county resources, not because Schrock should receive some sort of credit for being similarly motivated in each of the crimes. Thumbing through pages outlining Schrock 's criminal history, Judge Robert Rinfret said, “To be perfectly frank, your record is truly one of the worst I 've seen in my life. It goes on for pages.” Reading through a list of criminal convictions for a variety of property, drug and personal crimes in several Ohio counties, as well as Florida and Washington, Rinfret commented on a seemingly endless pattern of criminal behavior spanning decades.
Due process is the fair treatment of the judicial system by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. This is the constitutional guarantee that one will be given the opportunity to be heard before they are deprived of their life and (discharge from all restraints or obligations unless convicted). (Schmalleger 631-632) And also guaranteed that the law will not be unfair in anyway and that the government will not in any way deprive any person(s) of their constitutional rights.
He says the defendant accused of murder was let off and “eight years later they found out that he’d actually done it, anyway” (12). Prejudice clouds a person’s judgement and does not allow the individual to see all the facts. It only allows them to
This means that those charged with lesser crimes are pushed to the back of their caseloads. Public defenders are overworked and underpaid meaning that many times they cannot do their job to the best of their abilities. Sadly because of this system, many of their clients sit in holding cells for months or years, awaiting for a trial that is continually pushed off by their attorney. While the system of free public defenders seemed like an equal foot for criminal clients to stand on in the justice system, it is in reality a very messy and disorganized system that overlooks those without the most pressing issue. Gideon V. Wainright was a landmark case, arguably one of the most important cases of the sixties.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY On August 16, 2011, Defendant pled guilty for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. There were no disputed facts at the time of the sentencing. A Presentence Investigation Report was conducted, by the Probation Office, to identify ameliorating
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?