Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We are TEAM 1600 and today we are representing the people in the case of State of Midlands v. Dylan Hendricks. I along with my teammates will present evidence in this case that took place on 7/16/17. Your Honor, the victim, the complainant, Mr. Kerry Bell-Leon is an individual who suffered at the hand of the defendant who purposely and knowingly took an extension cord to cause the death of Mr. Bell-Leon on 7/16/17. Your Honor, the incident took place at 1999 Main St, Midlands City, Midlands, the residence of the complainant Mr. Bell-Leon. At that location, at approximately 10:50 pm, it is the Peoples’ intention to establish through the evidence that the defendant Dylan Hendricks entered that home unlawfully with only one purpose and intent and that was to take the life of Mr. Bell-Leon. Your Honor, the evidence will show on that date the defendant was in possession of a gun while at the home of Mr. Bell-Leon, that firearm was pointed at the Victim and it was able to be disarmed. In an attempt for the resident of the home, Mr. Bell-Leon to leave the residency safely he was accosted and tackled to the ground and an extension cord from his own home was used for the purposes of attempting to take his …show more content…
Bell-Leon is not a stranger to Mr. Dylan Hendrick. The evidence will show that prior to the incident, there was an opportunity for Mr. Bell-Leon to see the defendant. Most respectfully, Your Honor, the evidence will show that there was an association between the complainant, the complainant's wife and the defendant that will serve as a motive in this case. Your Honor, the defendant knowingly and purposely attempted to take the life of the victim, Mr. Bell-Leon to remove him from the equation. Three’s a crowd and with the victim out of the picture, the defendant Mr. Hendricks would be able to rekindle his love affair with the complainant’s wife without
Tammy Lou Fontenot v. Taser International, Inc. 3:10-cv-125-RJC-DCK U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division (2012) Parties: Tammy Lou Fontenot (plaintiff) v. Taser International, Inc. (defendant) Facts: Darryl Turner, a seventeen-year-old grocery store bagger, is the deceased in this wrongful death case. Turner was fired and refused to leave the store’s premises peacefully, the police were then called. Police officers used a Taser twice on Darryl while taking him into custody, after collapsing he was unable to be revived. Tammy Lou Fontenot was charged with administering Turner’s estate.
The defendant surrendered to police in Concord, New Hampshire on December 31, 1984. Goetz admitted that he was carrying a handgun illegally for three years. He had purchased the gun in 1981 because of a prior mugging that happened to him and he had used the handgun to ward off assailants twice. The defendant stated that the smile on Canty's face when he said, “give me five dollars” made him determine that Canty wanted to rob him. The defendant also stated the pattern of fire from the scene, stating that he shot left to right.
Jack Wilkins was the attorney who represented Virginia. At the time of the trial, he was having IRS and personal problems and was dealing with them as well as the trial. Court records show that two prosecuting attorneys and four trial attendees reported they could smell alcohol on his breath during the trial.
Your Honor and Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, in this case, we are here to prove that one night in the park Johnny Cade a violent, dirty, angry greaser pulled out his knife- the knife he had been carrying around waiting to get revenge on Bob Sheldon- and murdered him. Bob, Randy, and David stopped to take a stroll in the park where Ponyboy Curtis and Johnny Cade were waiting to attack. This is something Dallas Winston, a multiple-time offender, would do, Johnny looked up to Dallas. Therefore, we will be looking to convict Johnny Cade of first-degree murder. First of all, Johnny wanted revenge; he knew it was Bob Sheldon who had beaten him in the lot, and left a scar all the way down one side of his face, Johnny would always carry that scar with him.
On 10/30/2015, at approximately 2040 hours, Officer Bowman and your affiant were dispatched to 208 East Mount Vernon Street. The caller, Paul Whalen, stated that his brother just called someone to sell and drop off prescription medication. Your affiant arrived at 208 East mount Vernon Street and briefly spoke with Paul. I asked Paul if Jeffrey was at the house and he informed me that he was inside. Paul escorted me inside the living room where I waited for Jeffrey Whalen (defendant) to come downstairs from his bedroom.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Rainone and Nash failed to protect Plaintiff from a “foreseeable inmate assault” and were “deliberate [sic] indifferent to the Plaintiff’s right to be free from inmate assault.” Am. Compl. at 12-21. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants Pugh and Neven conspired against the Plaintiff to “obstruct the due course of justice.”
Williamson could not gain assistance from his parents as they passed away. Williamson’s sisters however did acknowledge he needed assistance and their support before and during his trial. Unfortunately, they were left with very limited ways to help him such as convincing police to grant him limited permission to attend the family funeral before the trial. Describe District Attorney Bill Peterson’s legal tactics and motivation in convicting Williamson and
The People against Robert Jefferson Burglary in the Third Degree, January 27, 1905 During the beginning of the twentieth century, Americans wanted change. The Progressive era was a time where people became more socially involved. Ending corruption in government was the most important part of the movement. Progressivism was an approach by the American people to reform local government, industry, churches and much more.
The fist argument that will show the prosecutor brining irrelevant evidence to the court was, “Q. And you were arrested for shoving and shuffling against people in that casino, weren’t you? A. They arrested me inside of the star casino, when I was taking to a man that is a member of a society that had a parade that day.” (Pg.36).
An Opening Your Honor, the opposing counsel, members of the jury, this case is about the unreliability of evidence and an insufficiency to meet the burden of proof that is required to convict Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor with a violation of Nita Liquor Commission Regulation 3.102. This case is to be decided on four issues: 1) Knowledge. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated? 2) Sale.
Juror #3's inability to separate his personal grievances from the case blinds him to the possibility of reasonable doubt and obstructs his capacity to consider alternative viewpoints. It is through intense conflict and introspection that Juror #3 ultimately confronts his prejudice and reevaluates his
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.
Closing Statement Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Lennie Smalls has been charged with the crime of voluntary manslaughter. This charge states that the defendant intended to cause injury but not bodily harm; it also states that the defendant had no prior intent to kill and was given a reason-either through anger or harassment-by the victim This charge does not apply to Lennie. Lennie Smalls is nothing more than a gentle giant. He also tends to be unaware of the consequences of his actions until they come about. Lennie while inhumanly strong, does not know how to control his strength.
This prejudice of his relationship with his son directly affects how he, juror three, views the case. Juror three’s emotion piles on as the other jurors discuss the case repeatedly, leading to his breakdown where he rips the picture of his son, then claims that the defendant is not