Daniel James White, who was the defendant voluntarily resigned from his job, as a supervisor in San Francisco County on November 10, 1978. The defendant was trying to relieve some stress in his life. Although, seven days later he asked to be reinstated in his position. Due to being unable to financially support his family without a job. The defendant later found out, that his former supervisor did not agree with the defendant being reinstated. On November 26, 1978, the City mayor announced he would have a press conference the following morning, to announce the new supervisor. On Monday morning, November 27, 1978, the defendant left his home with a firearm. The defendant drove to City Hall in which he then shot two victim. He shot his former supervisor Milk and the City Mayor. White killed both victims. He shot the Mayor 4 times and his supervisor 5 times. He fled the scene but later surrendered to the police. The defendant was sentences to 7 and two-third years in state prison. …show more content…
It was questioned if the killings of the supervisor and Mayor were premeditated. Also if the defendant had a mental condition, that prevented him from knowing right from wrong. In particular if he could he be diagnosed with a mental condition. That could possibly keep him from standing trial, and sent to a mental institution. The defendant was found to be depressed but not clinically depressed. Therefore the defendant was capable to premeditated and intentionally followed through with killing the victim’s. The defendant was evaluated by Dr. Roland Levy the day of the shooting once he turned himself in. Dr. Levy had analyzed the defendant’s psychiatrist’s opinions and concluded the defendant had no mental
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.
In Dusky v. United States (1959), two standards are created for determining whether or not a person is competent to stand trial. These standards do not go without flaws and are questioned by psychologists and psychological research. Milton R. Dusky had a demanding life throughout his childhood and adult years. He became an alcoholic because of the challenges he confronted daily. He had little money, could barely keep a job, got divorced, and could not take care of his son.
A mental health expert in a criminal trial may offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense PA rules of evidence adopted the FRE 704(A) which states that an opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). PA rules of evidence does not adopt FRE 704B. However, PA courts have ruled that expert testimony, which concerns a defendant's mental capacity to form the type of specific intent a conviction for murder of the first degree requires, significantly advance the inquiry as to the presence or absence of an essential element of the crime, resulting in relevant testimony. (Commonwealth v. Walzack). In this criminal case a mental health expert is prepared to offer an opinion on the whether the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.
The defendant, Mary Maloney, a seemingly happily married pregnant woman has killed her devoted and loving husband, Patrick Maloney. Mary Maloney had just received news from Patrick, she had taken the news wrong and quickly turned violent. She did not hesitate to then murder her husband. The Prosecution is charging Mary Maloney with Voluntary Manslaughter and Tampering with Physical Evidence. Mary Maloney may look innocent at first glance but she was capable of committing these horrendous acts without remorse.
Mr. Irvin survived and would recollect how “after the sheriff shot him twice, another official, Deputy Sheriff James L. Yates, shot him again in the neck. ”(Fortin, n.pag) His testimony would not uphold in court, and he was sent to jail. He died a year after his parole in
“All men are created equal…” a statement written in the US constitution that would not be true until 1954 when the U.S Supreme Court reviewed the case of Brown v Board of Education. Although the civil war ended, history reveals that blacks in America would continuously have to fight for equal rights. Pessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education are two landmark cases that impact America immensely. Each case indefinitely describes and defines segregation and racism. In government, as in anything in life, things only change when people take a stand.
This trial was very special, so the judge had appointed to hear the case. As the case is coming to a beginning, D.A. Katzmann made his case around three main key evidence: (1) eyewitness of Saco and Vanzetti at the scene. (2) Expert ballistics testimony establishing Sacco’s gun as the weapon that he fired the fatal shot at Berardelli and Vanzetti gun as the one taken from the robbery. (3) The defendant evasive behavior both before and after arrest was made and the evidence of what is legally termed as “consciousness of deep guilt”.
Civil Rights Helps Americans The 13th and 14th amendments abolished, "Slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States". Supreme Court had make many important decisions have impact civil rights. Those decisions had change the laws and rights of people. Therefore, many decisions Supreme Court made have impact in civil rights: the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Loving v. Virginia.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
In the boy’s statements they had told the police that the accused had made statements to them in which the accused acknowledged that he thought he had caused the death of the victim. The accused was charged with second-degree murder and he entered a plea of not guilty. The
Procedural History: Clayton Fountain was convicted of first degree murder against the guard Hoffman by a jury. The judge had sentenced him to no less but no more than 150 years in prison. He was also ordered to make pay $92,000 of restitution to Hoffman's estate, and $98,000 to Ditterline. He was also ordered to pay $300,000 to the Department of Labor. Silverstein and Gometz were tried together for the murder of Clutts with the same judge and before a jury.
In This case atkins was exempt from the death penalty due to his mental state. Atkins was examined and tested of his abilities to think and make rational decisions. The verdict was
Checking to see if someone is competent to stand trial is another investigative technique used by law enforcement. Every citizen has equal protections under the law, so making sure David Berkowitz was able to comprehend the trial was vital. A psychiatrist test was ordered to see if Berkowitz was competent. It determined that Berkowitz was not able to assist in his own defense and did not completely understand the charges against him. They believed he had the capacity to understand these killings were wrong, and know of the charges against him but he suffered from paranoid psychosis that left him emotionally dead, therefore he couldn’t aid in his own defense.
To the judge’s despair both experts gave not only different but opposite conclusions. The defendant’s expert testified that the defendants were mentally unstable while the prosecutor’s expert was on the other side of the spectrum. The presiding judge bought the defendant’s story and decided to acquit the defendants relying on defendant’s expert’s testimony. It later came to be known that he failed to take the correct path of sentencing the defendants to death. In the Loeb-Leopold case, Dean Wigmore, the Dean of Northwestern University, said while criticizing the judgment, where the experts devoted long hours to the study of the defense’s case, consulted only with the defense’s counsel, made preliminary reports to those counsel, cut down those original reports in their testimony, and answered only the questions that were asked by counsel, it was natural and inevitable that their testimony should take on a partisan
The Supreme Court decision in Chicago v. McDonald, 561 US 742 (2010) set the groundwork for States to take a deeper look at their particular gun control laws to determine if they were concurrent with the justices ruling as there would most likely be additional challenges to other states laws, but did the ruling in itself establish gun control legislation? A summary of the case and the preceding decision in the Supreme Court decision of 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller, is necessary to make this determination. In addition, a summary of the justice’s views on both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution will offer some additional insight so as to be able to form an opinion on the question. In recent years more than any, one of the most hotly and passionately debated topics of our great nation has been the 2nd Amendment.