Syed repeats his innocence by saying, “I had no reason to kill her” (Koenig Episode 1). Murder is the result of a violent drive or hatred from an individual. Adnan did not have this drive. Although many theories have led to the conviction of Adnan Syed, the insufficient evidence supporting his guilt lacked reason, consistency, and reliability leaving the possibility behind of a third person being involved, a serial killer. One of the hardest things to fathom is what drove Adnan to strangle Hae.
A college was held liable for injuries that a student suffered while on school grounds. These facts are different in this case mainly because a student is a lawful visitor to their own school’s grounds, where Richard Melville was not a lawful visitor to 666 Elm St. The opposition may also raise the case of Whittaker v. Saraceno, 418 Mass. 196 (1994). Where a tenant was barred from recovery because the criminal act was not foreseeable.
Harold Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act for unlawfully possessing a fully automatic assault rifle that was not properly registered with the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. Staples claimed he had no idea that the gun could fire automatically. At the trial Staples requested a jury instruction that he could not be found guiltily unless there was proof that he knew the gun was fully automatic. The trial judge ruled that the National Firearms Act did not require knowledge or mens rea but that it was a strict liability crime. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction.
( S. 1 (2) (a) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933). Yet another exception to the general rule is failing to report terrorist activity (Terrorism Act 2000). Liability for an omission can arise where a person is found to owe a duty to act through public office. A police officer is under a duty to assist members of the public in danger. This can be seen in the leading case R v Dytham.
In spite of the fact that a point by point exchange of corpus delicti is past the extent of this content, corpus delicti in a criminal murder case comprises of the passing of a casualty, brought on by the respondent, in an unlawful way. Regularly the casualty 's body is never found, which could make it more troublesome for the indictment to demonstrate corpus delicti however not unthinkable. On the off chance that there is adequate conditional or direct proof, for example, bloodstains, reconnaissance footage, or witness confirmation, the arraignment can demonstrate corpus delicti without the casualty 's body and can convict the respondent of criminal
In such cases, it is immaterial whether the attacker has committed a serious felony, a misdemeanor, or any crime at all” (Katzenbach et al., 1967). Although this appears to be a sound example of a good policy set forth in the report, it is too opened ended and appears to go against other detailed guidelines that the report states, such as the outlines that specifically say when a weapon can and cannot be used. As we know, many times the usage of a firearm is unwarranted by police (Katzenbach et al., 1967) therefore, can the idea stated above, which outlines that police are supposed to make a choice about what kind of force they should make, undoubtedly in the heat of moment, truly offer protection if we know that the decision often made is unwarranted? Through the Report’s guideline no one can be safe because of the variation and differing degrees of safety that it
To begin, physical evidence is an important artifact in any base of a murder trial. First off, there is no evidence of Adnan in Hae’s car liking him to her murder. Sarah says, “There was nothing linking him to the crime-no DNA, no fibers, no hairs.” This demonstrates that the conviction of Adnan is unfair because if there is nothing that shows that Adnan is in the car when Hae was killed, he cannot be convicted for this because theoretically, one cannot be convicted of murder without any physical evidence. Sarah says, “There was nothing linking him to the crime,” so how can the jury make an assumption about the murder without any physical evidence? Second, although the state didn’t test many pieces of evidence, the state did test the soil on
People take advantage of Amendment One by verbally hurting someone purposely or they will state false facts. The Constitution does not protect these acts at of abuse. For example Amendment Two states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Although United States citizens have the right to bear arms, some people choose to use this law to commit crimes such as murder or robbing banks. To use one law to violate another does not make logical sense whatsoever, and committing a crime based on the Constitution is not protected in the Constitution.The Constitution gives us the opportunity to achieve Equality in society. Based on the Constitution, equality is achievable.
He was be acquitted because the two of his vice-personalities committed the crimes without Milligan being aware of it. [ Reference to Wikipedia website-Billy Milligan] So, through this case, we can know that in the law the main-personality and the vice-personality have been defined as two different individual. The vice-personality committed the crime, the main-personality not need to receive the