Jailhouse Informant Case

Tyria Moore had fled to stay with her family in Pennsylvania, but soon after she was found and questioned by the police. They wanted her to write a letter to Wuornos with her contact information so police listen in on conversations between the two and get even more information about the crimes. She agreed to cooperate and even gave testimony against Wuornos. She claimed that Wuornos had mentioned to her before that she had killed a man. Moore told police she believed Wuornos had been killing people due to the accumulation of new items and cars, but did not want to question Wuornos any further fearing she would become an accomplice to the crime.

And I agree and disagree with this case because first he pleaded guilty and then he was caught again and he said he was under extreme duress to confess, but they had caught him and or maybe the accomplice confessed. It’s a tough one. And then there was a question on oyez that said, “is a previously sentenced probationer entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked? if so is he entitled to a representation by an attorney?” I would say no, because it was revoked for a reason, but

Adnan Syed was convicted of killing his on-and-off-again high school girlfriend, Hae Min Lee, in Baltimore in 1999. He supposedly strangled her and has spent the last sixteen years

A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.

Criminal defendants should not be allowed bargain for a reduced sentence in exchange for a guilty plea because some defense lawyers may not represent the best interest of the client, it does not allow the criminal defendant to take full responsibility for their actions, and the victim and the family will not feel as justice was served if a violent crime had occurred. Criminal defendants rely on their defense attorney to aid them in decision making to ensure that they are not being deceived. But when these defense

Based upon my research, the exclusionary rule should not apply to an illegal arrest. The exclusionary rule was a court created deterrent and remedy, to keep law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment when conducting searches and seizures ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). It is mainly used to exclude incriminating evidence that was gathered illegally to be introduced into the court as evidence against a person. The rule was developed to give individual’s rights and civil liberties the maximum protection from improper conduct and procedures from law enforcement ("The Fourth Amendment And The Exclusionary Rule - Findlaw"). Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule.

If you cannot afford one... and so on. There is a popular belief out there that before the police can use anything you say against you, that you must have these rights read to you. Wrong. In fact, many statements suspects make may be used against them - even if they never received your Miranda Rights! To understand why, you must know why police give Miranda Rights in the first place.

People v. Porco 71 A.D.3d 791 (2010) People v. Porco is a murder case in which the defendant appealed the court erred in allowing the detective to testify about his mother. The defendant was convicted of second degree murder, and attempted murder of the second degree. The defendant attacked his parents with an axe while they were asleep in bed, killing his father, and attempting to kill his mother. The evidence used in trial was his mother’s affirmative nod to the detective to confirm that her son was the perpetrator while being treated by the paramedics. He also admitted at trial of other uncharged crimes that held similar means of execution and were disguised as break-ins.

The Supreme court accepted the case. Fields attorneys are arguing that the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. Field attorneys argued that Fields cannot be convicted because he lied. The First amendment protects speech that does not directly harm others. Fields attorneys claim that Fields had lied about himself, and by lying about himself he only hurt himself.

Police became suspicious after realizing that Henthorne was the sole witness of death for both his wives as well as the only benefactor of both their insurance companies. Eventually, Henthorne was convicted of two cases of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Although both men were able to enjoy the fruits of their action for some time, they ultimately suffered the

The public will view the throat hold as the excessive use of force; however, the search to acquire the evidence to substantiate the charge, could not have been obtained in a less intrusive manner. The case R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301, saw the throat hold being used by RCMP officer to secure the accused while a search was conducted on the apartment. This provides evidence that throat hold performed by the officer is a common method used against individuals suspected of involvement in drug trafficking (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The RCMP officer used the throat grab in this case as an instinct as a result of training (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301). The constable also mentioned that he had used the hold on numerous occasions without performing a search (R. v. Hamill, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301).

They demanded money for their silence. Gaskins quickly took care of Diane and her boyfriend. On April 27, 1976, Gaskins and Neely were charged with many accounts of murder. Come May 24, 1976 Gaskins was also convicted of murdering Dennis Bellamy and was sentences to death.

However, a defendant might accept a plea bargain from the prosecution before trial, because the evidence against them is overwhelming. If that is not the case, the prosecution will have to prove their case to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed a crime, and the defendant should have to serve jail or prison time for their punishment as a result of their crime. In conclusion, many people believe the Texas Judicial Branch needs refurbishing for the 21st century.

That’s what happens to Adnan Syed. Adnan was convicted of the murder of Hae Min Lee 6 weeks after she went missing. On January 13, 1999, Hae Min Lee went missing, and on February 9, 1999, her body was found in Leakin Park in Baltimore. Adnan Syed is guilty of killing Hae Min Lee, but there isn’t enough evidence to convict him of murder. The day Hae went missing, where was Adnan.

There have even been some states which the lower courts have ruled that using fake evidence to obtain confession is a violation of the suspect’s rights (Florida v. Cayward) (Pollock, 2014, p. 156). The other unethical response to telling the suspect that the death penalty will be taken off the table. This is an area that the homicide detective has no control over. Only the prosecutor can give this type of deal with the suspect and his attorney. The benefits in taking the unethical response is getting the confession, however, is this confession an actual true confession or just a confession from fear.