In the case of R. v. Wood, 2007 ABQB 503, Susanne Lynn Wood appeals her September 8, 2006, conviction on one count of impaired driving, contrary to s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code, where on September 8 the appeal was quashed, and she was convicted. On May 31, 2004, the witness David Godziuk phoned the Edmonton police of a possible impaired driver, after the Appellant’s vehicle almost hit his vehicle. David Godziuk followed the Appellant’s vehicle, observing consist exceeded speed, suddenly braking, random lane changes, and tailgate others. Constable Smith of the Edmonton police service was dispatched to investigate said driver, as he approached the Appellant’s vehicle he followed her for two blocks observing the vehicle swerve left to right, once Constable Smith turned on his emergency lights the driver abruptly stepped on the breaks and stopped the vehicle (R. v. Wood, 2007). Constable Smith approached the vehicle
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Larry Offutt (“Offutt”), appellant, was convicted of robbery with a dangerous weapon, attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, and related charges. On appeal, Austin presents three questions for our review, which we have rephrased as follows: 1. Whether the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination of a state’s witness regarding her involvement in an unrelated offense. 2. Whether the trial court erred in overruling an objection to the prosecutor’s statements on the grounds that the statements impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defense.
Case Summary Part 1 The prosecution is legally bound to disclose to the defense evidence that is favorable to the defendant. Three examples of the prosecutor’s obligations to disclose evidence are Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976). According to Rule 3.8, “the prosecutor must make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by
But a plea of guilty is not invalid just because entered to avoid the possibility of the death penalty, and here, the petitioner's plea of guilty met the standard of
On August 2, 2009, David Leon Riley who belong to the Lincoln Park gang in San Diego, California open fire with others on a rival gang member that was driving past them. They then got into Riley’s Oldsmobile and drove away. The police pulled over driving a different car on August 20, 2009 for having expired registration tags, because Riley was driving with a suspended driver’s license, the required police policy is for the car to be impounded. Before any car is impounded, the police are required to perform a inventory search to make sure it has all the components at the time of the search, to protect against liability claims in the future, and to find hidden contraband. Police found 2 firearms and arrested Riley for possession of firearms.
Robert Durst, a wealthy real estate heir, whose life is documented in a current HBO series for suspicions he is a serial killer, has been arrested in New Orleans. The 71-year-old Durst was nabbed by the authorities in the lobby of J.W. Marriot Hotell in New Orleans, on Canal Street, across the French Quarter. His lawyer, Chip Lewis says, the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office took custody of him, based on an extradition warrant that sought to bring him back to California.
This is a “Bad Deal” suggested Alexander. She explores how the lack of representation ends into a plea deal by the prosecutor in a manner of giving the accused a favor. Even though, it locks a person in to only convicting him/herself. She knows that the prosecutor has the ultimate decision to dismiss or add additional charges, which holds the key to his/her life. I agree with Alexander because the prosecutor is like the ‘god of the courts.”
1. According to the case law of Illinois v Allen, the US supreme court held that “trial judges confronted with disruptive, contumacious, and stubbornly defiant defendant must be given sufficient discretion to meet the circumstances of each case. The court further observed that at least three constitutionally acceptable avenues exist for dealing with a defiant defendant, in the case of Ms. Roberts she was a very defiant defendant. The avenues are 1.
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.
There are many issues associated with plea bargaining. The accused could benefit with the possibility of a reduced or combined charges, reduced attorney fees, and the chance of a reduced or shorter sentence that may be imposed by going to trial. Plea bargaining can also give the prosecutors the ability to convict the accused even if they have a weak case and there is question whether or not they can get a conviction. It also will save time and resources necessary for trial. This will apply to defense attorneys as well, they may be unsure of their ability to get an acquittal for their client; however, in some cases the accused many know in his heart that he is innocent and want to go to trial.
Both sides will carefully weigh the strength of their case and decide whether it is prudent to go to trial. The prosecution may also consider the publicity surrounding the case and whether there is public pressure to prosecute that particular defendant to the full extent of the law. The defense will consider the individual defendant’s desire to go to trial and the seriousness of the potential sentence. The Pros of Plea Bargaining
• The Constitution is weakened by the excessive use of plea-bargaining to avoid a trial. Research has shown that criminal defendants who exercise their Sixth Amendment right to trail by jury are more severely punished than those who accept plea bargains (Devers, 2011, p. 2). It is assumed that plea-bargaining weakens the criminal justice system by allowing violent criminals to plea out of serious charges and putting the disadvantaged and potentially innocent or partially innocent in a position where exercising their constitutional right to a trial by jury is too risky of an option. Prosecutors are required by the state to carry the burden and prosecute the accused.
The results of the trial in Stamford was that Mercy Disborough was temporarily convicted of witchcraft while Goody Clawson was acquitted. The consequences for Mercy Disborough were that despite months and jail and continued peer accusation, she was acquitted. The consequences for the townspeople are blurrier, but it is evident that persistent hysteria was not one of them. The results of the trial in Stamford were largely reigned in from the massive hysteria and mass convictions associated with contemporary witch trials by the law.
What is your opinion of this dynamic? Judge Gaul wants the defendants to accept responsibility for their
R v Loveridge 7th July 2012 Introduction Kieran Loveridge, the offender, pleaded guilty to an indictment containing five counts of offending, all of which occurred on July 7, 2012 in Kings Cross, a suburb of Potts Point. There are three charges of common assault, one charge of assault causing actual bodily harm, and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The offender was in Court on October 25th, 2013 to be sentenced for each of these offences. Offender's charges and sentence For the third count, assaulting Matthew Serrao, the offender was sentenced to four months in prison, beginning on September 18, 2012 and ending on January 17, 2013.
