Confrontation clause deals with the witness in a trial. The defendant now has the right to have the witness directly involved be brought to the stand. Friends wouldn’t tell the truth, they would lie on behalf of the defendant that the are close friends with. It makes court cases more difficult in properly prosecuting a possible criminal. Compulsory Process Clause allows the for witnesses to be called to the stand to either defend the defendant, however witnesses that have had felony or treason cases are not allowed to be witnesses.
This is very uncommon but is most common with people who are either very confident or have experience with law. Although this is very uncommon, one thing that they can do as their own lawyer is to plead the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination, saying something that could get them arrested. They can be silent during their trial and force the prosecutor to prove the person is guilty. When you hear the words, "You are innocent until proven guilty." They mean it, and if the person being prosecuted doesn 't think they have enough evidence or that they are truly innocent, then that 's what could happen.
Innocent defendants who are risk averse cannot be willing to risk going to trial and receiving harsh sentences and instead choose to plead guilty to ensure the receive lenient sentences. It undermines the integrity of the justice system as it allows the government to evade the rigorous standards required by the due process. It allows the prosecutor to take the role of a judge and jury in determining the guilt of the defendant. It also allows the defendant to escape the full punishment for their misconduct by giving them lenient sentences. Lenient sentences offered to those who plea bargain in contrast to harsher sentences for those who are convicted after a full trial lead to disparities in individuals convicted of similar offences.
Mary was guilty for her crimes and knew she was, but didn't deserve to die. This argument states facts to prove Mary Surratt was guilty. I would recommend that Mary was guilty but did not deserve the death penalty, i would have said “ There is not enough evidence in the case to prove that she was guilty”. Also Samuel
First, the 7th Amendment ensures that citizens have to right to have a court. It also helps us because the common law or civil law court hear their case on the Federal level by a jury. It also helps us by providing a jury trial. For example, in court jury, the case protects and no one can change the factor otherwise it will be re-examined by another court of United States. As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go.
For example, a people Q, have been murdered, the prosecutor presented a voice record about the defendant threaten to murder Q if Q does not want to accept his contract, such evidence may be Prima Facie evidence of intend to kill. Prima Facie evidence does not mean that it cannot be deny, it is use to prevent charges being made have no evidence to back it up and waste the time for court and other parties. According Section 173(f), if the judge decide no prima facie case then the defendant will be acquitted because the evidence is not sufficient. Presumption that the defendant are innocent until proven to the
I agree with this statement of William Blackstone. This quote means that an innocent person should not be falsely accused and therefore, it 's better for ten criminals to be let free.It is not fair that one does the harm and another bears the blame. Punishing someone for a crime they did not commit is just as terrible as committing a crime itself. This statement it is the basics of the American legal system: society must punish criminals in order to preserve itself but the law says that any person who is accused of a crime must be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.I believe that in some circumstances it is better to let the ten go rather than to keep the one innocent a prisoner. There is no way for the innocent man to be consoled
However, this very thinking contradicts our justice system that believes a defendant is “innocent until proven guilty,” by basically saying that justice doesn’t even pertain to capital punishment. You can’t say justice is being served and the person is innocent until proven guilty when you have the wrong person sitting in their cell on death row. Still, proponents believe our justice system should be principled on the proverb “an eye for an eye.” However, Byler goes on to argue, “Nobody advocates punishing rapists with rape or molesting molesters, yet the death penalty is deemed an appropriate response to violent crime” (Byler). And so opponents of the death penalty argue: Why can’t
We all have heard the saying “the hands of one is the hands of all” this is considered the accomplice liability. Even though “the accomplice did not perform the actus reus and may or may not possess the appropriate menas rea,” he still can be treated as equally responsible as the actual guilty person. Because of the accomplice liability rule it is possible that a factual innocent person may be eligible for the death penalty. If convicted and sentenced to death for the action of some else, factual innocence can be seen as a wrongful death sentence and a miscarriage of
Additionally, people argue that a reasonable punishment for a person that has taken the life of another is “an eye for an eye.” However, taking a man’s life as a form of justice is wrong. Therefore, the government should ban capital punishment and come together to create a different way to seek justice. Can capital punishment be reversed? Everybody makes mistakes. For example, if a jury wrongly convicts a person of murder and the person is sentenced to life in prison, the jury can immediately have the conviction overturned and the person will be released.