The respondent then sought collateral relief in the state court on numerous grounds, specifically among them was his assertion that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. The respondent challenged his counsel’s assistance in six respects. He claimed that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a continuance to prepare for sentencing, failed to request a psychiatric report, failed to investigate and present character witnesses, failed to seek a pre-sentence investigation report, failed to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge, and failed to investigate the medical examiner’s reports or cross-examine the medical experts. The respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court seeking relief on numerous grounds, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors.
A broken finger is a minor, non-life threatening injury, and could have occurred while the prisoner resisted the officers. If the prisoner decides to file a petition in court, he could use the Whitley v Albers case as a precedent and the eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment along with excessive force to argue his case. 2. A prisoner was prescribed medications that made him feel unpleasant, but prison officials forced him to take the medications regardless of his protests. This inmate has a case against prison officials
On April 17 2016, 60 Minutes aired the interview of Bill Whitaker. He interviewed U.S. attorneys Preet Bharara and Jonathan Abady and the president the union that represents correction officers Norman Seabrook. Jonathan Abady argued that the correction officers who are employed at Rickets Island fail to perform their job correctly. Specifically he claimed that correction officers at Rickets Island are not helping the mentally ill inmates that they have, but harming them. As the interviewee said, “The number of facial fractures, of traumatic brain injury, of broken bones, of serious physical injury, is just out of control.” Although that some people believe that the correction officers at Rickets Island do help and do their job well, Abady insists
The plaintiffs also claimed the hospital failed to require its staff to follow well-recognized and established administrative regulations and hospital procedures. The plaintiff did not object to the omission of vicarious liability. Because the theory of hospital negligence submitted to the jury was subordinate, they must determine whether the record contained evidence from which a jury could conclude that the hospital itself went away from the standard care of practice. The defendant’s remaining arguments were as follows: they claim that two pieces of evidence were containing admissions by Carol Armstrong and that she had consented to the exams, and that the consent was very wrongfully
Would the Chief Attorney be against this decision due to the reduction in time for possible sentencing? Resisting Arrest would be another charge that I would consider pleading to an attempt of Resisting Arrest. This is due to the fact that Pat did not make contact with the officer. He made an attempt to punch the officer but ultimately failed to make impact. He although did create a substantial threat to the police officer.
Basis of Appeal Gault is claiming for an appeal due to his 14th amendment right being violated of improper due process. In addition, Gault was not given proper notice of hearing and was not given proper representation. Also, Gault was not given the chance to face his accuser for the judge states that Mrs. Cook did not need to be present because she already spoke with the authorities. In conclusion, Gault ‘s conviction should be reversed based on improper due process that violates the 14th amendment.
Starting with District of Columbia V. Heller, where a man by the name of Alan Gura was tasked with convincing the justices that the second amendment guaranteed individuals the right to own guns. The task at hand for him seemed a little too large for him due to the fact that he was not as experienced as his opponent Walter Dellinger. The National Rifle Association believed that his case would end poorly for their organization. They were also dead set on making sure the Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the meaning of the Second Amendment. So they tried with all of their power to stop Gura from pursuing the case, however Gura was determined to convince the court.
They can take away my heart, but I know in my heart that I did not do these alleged acts" (Bohm & Haley, 2014, p.309). He plans to fight and overturn the verdicts. I do not think there is enough evidence to be able to overturn the verdicts. The evidence that was presented was the eight boy’s statements that were testified. One thing that would hold is the cover up that his piers were convicted of dealing with his crime and the juveniles testimonies if they all were similar to Sandusky’s ways to which the jury will be convinced.
The United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense. It gives defendants grounds for suit not only when they are not told about a potential deal, but also when an attorney advises against taking a deal.
Evan Vipond (2015) states that the law “ignores the historical and systemic forms of oppression that are enforced through state and civil acts of violence” (16). It was this issue of history that was missing in Steven Tyler Kummerfield and Alexander Dennis Ternowetsky trial and as such it is important to acknowledge that George became objectified and personified as indignant, deviant and deserving of the rape and murder she endured. In Justice Malone’s instructions to the jury, he informed them that it would be “dangerous” for the jury to return a guilty verdict, presumably on the basis of the precedence that it would set, however, this instead reveals a larger problem of the Canadian legal system seen from the perspective of the ongoing legacy and presence of colonialism and how it continues to both shape and form through case laws. Today, there remains an urgent need to explore how intersections of race, gender, and class in prostitution exist in