The Public Defender that is appointed to represent the claimant, works for a private entity appointed by the Government. The claimant who needs legal services is unable to pay for these services. The Public Defender is screened and is appointed by the Judge. In some cases, unknown by the court, a claimant may in rare cases represent themselves and this is called “The Pro Se Defense”. The claimant would need to be very knowledgeable of the Criminal Law.
The concept of jury nullification is not one that is broadly known or spoken about in the discipline of law. This is because until more recent years the concept was considered a complex subject that garnered plenty of conversation and debate. To understand the controversy that surrounds this particular area of the law, a definition of jury nullification is in order. It is known that the jury’s role is to act as the unbiased and impartial voice of judgment during the proceedings of a court case. They are required to listen to all sides of the story, examine all facts presented, and are ultimately responsible for reaching a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.
Even though there could be a refute with the evidence saying Adnan was guilty, there is too little to make a strong case with no question or hard evidence counteracting why he is innocent. There are crossroads with the Jay Wilds- a friend of Adnan 's at the time hearing, along with the cellphone records. “Jay 's story wasn 't just the foundation of the state 's case against Adnan. It was the state 's case against Adnan”(Sarah Kenick). Adnan Syed was wrongfully convicted due to unsettled answers and evidence in the hearings of Jay Wilds and contradicting cellphone records.
But if you read the entire bill, there has to be evidence that you were truly defending yourself, and the only difference between this and other self-defense laws are you don't have to retreat. Most of the bills require you to try and get away in the unfortunate situations of being attacked before using any force. Why should they be charged with murder for self-defense when they had no choice? Why would you require someone to run away from an attacker when there is clearly no other way they could have survived
When you put your life in the hands of 12 people then you have to convince them your innocents where as you have a judge trail you have to convince him with the evidence and he’s the only one that will make the decision, however sometimes a jury trial works better for whoever being accused depending on the case. Eye witness testimony is sworn to tell the truth otherwise they commit perjury and can be fine or possible go to jail so when your using there information they’re obligated to tell what they saw to help dictate the bigger picture eye witnesses help solve the mysteries and help answer question regarding the case and event. However you get someone that’s dirty nothing says they won’t try to bribe to testify on their behalf. It’s hard to find 12 honest people that will listen and convict somebody,
A plea bargain is an optional agreement that occurs during a criminal case between a prosecutor and defendant. These agreements are options for the defendant to take rather than taking their case to trial. Ninety-seven percent of all federal cases and ninety-four of all state cases are all settled by plea bargains() Plea bargaining has become a normal process when it comes to court cases. Although every individual has their own beliefs, plea bargaining helps out our criminal justice system but in contrast it is taking away from the value of the criminal justice system. Just like in every story we are faced with two different sides a positive and a negative.
Heck Tate, tried to appear as neutral as possible in this trial. This scene shows that they tried to do the right thing even though they knew it was unfeasible. Lee indirectly shows the response of other characters even though the characters were not present at the time. This indirect characterization also happens later, as Atticus talks about the jury during the trial. Even though all the adults knew the outcome of the trial “there was one fellow who took considerable wearing down- [...] the Cunninghams?’[...] ‘One minute they’re tryin’ to kill him and the next they’re tryin’ to turn him loose” (222).
If someone say something that may help the authorities find the crook who actually committed the crime. Then they won't use it against that person in court. They will use the evidence the person gave them to help them solve the crime that was committed. If the person “helping” the police actually committed the crime and lied about not doing it that person would get worse charges. That is why I think the Miranda Rights are more than just words.
Eyewitness identifications can ruin the lives of innocent people and cause them to live their life behind bars for a crime they didn’t commit. Eye witness testimonies can be the deciding factor for a criminal trial, but the the reliability of the eye witness testimonies is not always as accurate as we assume. Although eyewitness identifications can be very beneficial in solving a case, there have been countless instances where the eyewitness identification has been incorrect due to multiple psychological factors. Memory is the most important aspect to eyewitness identifications because it is the sole tool for remembering details of a specific event, but memory is very complex and has many different aspects that can cause for unreliable
Many news stories, reports, and books fairly describe wrongful convictions in detail, although not all of these wrongful convictions resulted in formal exonerations. Most witness misidentifications were made in good faith with the witness attempting to help officials find the real perpetrator of a crime, although this explanation does not examine the conditions under which these identifications were made. Some of the conditions that need to be taken into account are whether a photo was shown to a victim by the police before a lineup, whether the identification by the witness was hesitant, or if the victim was urged to be positive when testifying. Additionally, was the identification from the same race; was there prejudice, how much distance and duration of interaction was there between victim and suspect prior to identification and what were the viewing conditions; darkness or day light? With so many factors involved, it should be obvious to some why eye-witness misidentification can happen so frequently.
When they tell people this it means they are reading the person their rights to them. What is the reason we have lawyers during anything to do with the police or the court system. Lawyers are usually present during questionings. A lawyer is present to try and change the jury 's decision. Lawyers are present during interrogations to convince the cops the person is innocent.
Law & Order, not pertaining to any specific case usually have witnesses, and at times jurors expect the eyewitness to have solid facts as to applying it to the verdict. Sometimes it’s difficult as well to have jurors who know about the case through social media so if they’ve seen similar cases on television or in reality they will quickly use that case to evaluate their verdict. At the same time this causes bias preconception throughout jurors mind during the case. According to two different sources, one believes that forensic technology is not the case of why jurors believe in forensic evidence, and the other believes is it true that jurors believe in forensic technology. According to Judge Donald Shelton, he says that these CSI Effect articles are primarily based off of lawyers opinions, they are not facts.
Also, the defense attorney claimed it’s very hard to go beyond a reasonable doubt, while the prosecutor asserted it is not impossible to reach it. Both of them were referring to the same concepts, but defined them differently. The more you know about the law, the more you are able to draw a judgment of an
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.
What the miranda rights mean to me What is the reason to having the miranda rights?Not many people have heard of the miranda rights.On the other hand cops that have heard of the miranda rights should know them and if they don 't and arrest someone and they go in front of a judge and was to say they didn 't know anything about their rights they would be set free. If the police ask me questions i would want my miranda rights read to me because i would like to know my rights as an american citizen what i could do and what i couldn 't do but if i didn 't know that i didn 't have to talk and i told the officer something that i didn 't want them knowing about while there was no lawyer. When the police are asking me questions i should have the right to remain silent and then the police can 't ask me questions and if they do then i don 't have to answer anything and if they try to make me say something i don 't have to until i am standing in front of a judge or there is a lawyer present.The police have to know what they are doing and know what to tell the criminal because if he doesn 't tell him everything that he needs to know then he could possible get set free.