In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes. The counselor also judged that he should rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and his claim of emotional stress. The counselor believed the plea colloquy provided sufficient information to the Court about these subjects. He also believed that by not introducing new evidence on these subjects, he prevented the State from cross-examining the respondent on his claim and from introducing its own psychiatric evidence. He also was successful in excluding other damaging evidence from the sentencing hearing, including the introduction of the respondent’s criminal history.
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
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
And finally that leagues are not set on appropriate disciplinary actions that athletes should serve when prosecuted of domestic violence, meanwhile I argue that when it comes to Hope Solo’s domestic violence case she has served the correct punishment for her actions and double standards are not a factor in this
Regardless of what is fair and what is not, the defendant has rights during trial. One of those rights under the 5th Amendment is the right against self incrimination and according to Winegar, the 6th Amendment provides a defendant the ability to testify on one’s behalf (2013). However, lack of testimony from a defendant can cause an interference with the jury or cloud their judgement because they were not previewed to what the defendant has to say. According to Hall, the jury is instructed not to guess or assume guilt because the defendant does not put on a defense. (2015) In my personal opinion, if a defendant chooses to testify I believe it should be conducted during pre trial or before a witness or victim can give their testimony.
So the fact that she acted kind of silly and isn 't very good at hiding things she gave herself up. The way they decide to kill Mary was a little harsh for what little she did, Mary Surratt should not be hanged for her crimes. Because of the evidence i gave above supports that she didn 't do anything on
There are many times in life where a person’s actions, while dishonest, will not have a large effect on the lives of other people and can therefore be considered insignificant. However, this is not the case regarding Mayella Ewell, a young girl who lied during the testimony of her own rape case, leading to the wrongful conviction of the defendant, Tom Robinson. The following arguments will explain why Mayella should be held fully and solely responsible for her actions regarding the Tom Robinson case. Due to her deliberately dishonest testimony, her intent to act upon a path that would bring the most harm to all persons surrounding the case, and the prolonged harm her actions caused, Mayella Ewell deserves condemnation, not pity. During
Although there are exceptions, women generally should not be charged with murder of an abusive husband because she acted in self-defense. To protect the accused from slander, the accuser should show proof of the abuse, proof of self-defense, and for
Comey believes police officers have the right to be forceful when confronting a suspect. He also indicates that videos of police brutality should not be posted or distributed in any way. Not do only this sounds absurd, but it also sounds as though it is not significant if some of the people who are arrested are also brutally treated. If police officer can be abusive and treat their suspect roughly then they would be breaking Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (US Const. amend.
The prosecution won’t have to prove that you pointed the deadly weapon at another person or that you actively tried to use it to cause them harm. 4. In a Threatening, Angry or Rude Manner This element will be satisfied if you just display, point, wave around or brandish the deadly weapon in an offensive, threatening, angry or rude manner. Even though you only intended to frighten the other person, such intention might not be considered in the brandishing case. In fact, brandishing laws were designed to discourage people from threatening others using weapons because of the tragic events that might potentially occur if the weapons are used.