Evidence 701: Case Study

The question in this case was whether they should suppress his confession because of the non telling of his Miranda rights, and another question brought up in this case is whether the inmate was considered in custody or not. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/supreme-court-rules-on-case-involving-miranda-rights.html?_r=1)

John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders. Robert Taliento handled and cashed the money orders on his machine. This was the story Taliento gave to the grand jury and John Giglio was prosecuted; Taliento was named a co-conspirator but not indicted on charges. Giglio requested for a new trial was denied by lower courts but The Supreme Court reversed it. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the evidence that wasn’t revealed obligated a new trial under the due process standards that has been created in the Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.

Piette had been presented critical evidence in the case that clearly declared his client to be guilty, however, instead of debating he sat quietly and observed. Every time the judge would question the defense comments on the presented evidence, Piette would simply say that his client took no side. Despite what Lieutenant Piette was thinking, he knew that it would be extremely dangerous to the case if he began to debate. Piette’s strategy cause yet again more controversy in the legal field. An Air Force major that was in the court believed that Piette’s strategy was immodest. However Abbe Smith, a former teacher of Piette and a law professor at Georgetown believed that Piette was very

In addition, a motion to suppress was filed, noting inculpatory statements which Duhon had given to investigators. His attorney argued that Duhon lacked the mental capacity to provide voluntary statements and did not understand his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Therefore, the statements provided by Duhon, even though he voluntarily gave them, cannot be used in court. The more imperative evidence, including the testimony of court-appointed experts in forensic psychology and criminal law, concludes that Duhon will remain incompetent. If the defendant is deemed incompetent, he cannot communicate with his attorney, cross examine witnesses, decide how to plea, and etc. there is a strong possibility he may not have a fair

Bath, N.Y. (WENY) -- In a few days Thomas Clayton will be sentenced for his role in orchestrating his wife 's death. However on Thursday, the attorney for the convicted murderer made his first motion for a new trial.

Under the modified Daubert standard, relevant scientific evidence is only admissible if it is centered upon testable hypotheses, conforms with the standard rate of potential errors, has been peer reviewed, and if the method is generally accepted in the scientific community (Hoog, 2008). However, there are three problems with the application of the Daubert standard. Firstly, David E. Bernstein and Jeffrey D. Jackson (2004) proved that there was no uniformity in the application of the standard in the sense that it’s only abided with in a portion of the states, and not necessarily with full adherence. Secondly, since the judge is not a scientist, it is difficult for him/her to, without doubt, determine the full honesty of the experts’ testimonies. An example from the Willingham case would be the two medical experts asserting that he was a sociopath although one was an irrelevant family counselor and the other, known as “Dr. Death” and later expelled from the American Psychiatric Association for ethical violations, had not even spoken to Todd Willingham. Last but not least, science is characterized by its incessant evolution in a way that a single new anomaly can easily falsify a strong scientific theory. In simple English, even experts know that there is no ultimate certainty to

The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.

This piece of the novel is extremely important. It shows the reality of the situation. It is important to the readers to understand that every family has flaws. Capote goes on about how loved and cherish the Clutter’s are and how well known they are. It proves to society that even the most popular, the richest, the luckiest, and the prettiest people out there do not have perfect lives.This piece of literature is filled with irony. Verbal, dramatic and situational irony can all be found throughout the novel. Dramatic irony is especially found in the lines “Tonight, having dried and brushed her hair and bound it in a gauzy bandanna, she set out the clothes she intended to wear to church the next morning: nylons, black pumps, a red velveteen dress- her

During the trial in the book to kill a mockingbird by Harper Lee. The Lawyer Atticus Finch uses rhetorical appeals such as ethos, logos, and pathos tap into the jury's sense of ethics, logic and emotion to convey Tom Robinson, a black man, is innocence in a rape case.

Although in In Cold Blood, Truman Capote is illustrating the aftermath of the murders, his prime motive is to humanize and create sympathy for Perry; therefore he asserts that the Law is biased and cruel to those who commit crimes.

Clarence Earl Gideon was not someone you would expect to be a hero. According to www.uscourts.gov, he left school after the 8th grade and decided to run away from home. “He was mostly a drifter, spending time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes,” their website reads. When he was 51 years old, he was accused of breaking into a bar in Florida and arrested. He was too poor to afford a lawyer, so when he got to court, he asked the judge to appoint him one, according to his rights under the Sixth Amendment. The judge refused, and he had to represent himself. “He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution 's witnesses, brought witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant’s essential accommodation claim went to trial, but court excluded evidence regarding disability. The plaintiff is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However, the issue should have been decided by the jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.

In order to properly understand the importance of Leser v. Garnett (1922) 42 Sup. Ct.

The Supreme Court ordered that such “deliberate indifference” to an inmate 's “serious medical needs” was a violation of that inmate 's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This case guaranteed three basic rights: the right to access to care, the right to care that is ordered, and the right to professional medical judgment.

The pathologist identified bruises on Rust’s knuckles that were consistent with having hit Lavallee. Miller had the doctor “confirm that Battered Woman Syndrome is not a psychiatric term”(Sheehy, 2014, 22). One of Miller’s strategies was to get Lavallee to testify on grounds that if she did not, the defense would be “introducing medical and psychiatric evidence without an evidentiary foundation”(Sheehy, 2014, 33). Nonetheless, the judge decided Lavallee was not required to testify so Miller went on to persistently try to get Dr.Dirks to state that one emergency visit a year is normal. Miller continuously tried to suggest that Lavallee’s injuries could have been caused by anyone, not just Rust because her injuries were quite often ‘singular’. During Miller’s persecution he kept going over the same questions and “pounding away at the same questions” over and over again. In closing, Miller tried to discount Dr.Shane’s testimony and once again emphasized the fact that Lavallee herself did not actually testify. Overall, Miller did not have very strong arguments. He often just wrangled on for too long, went over the same points, and lost points with the judge a few ties as