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 I would say no, because it was revoked for a reason, but yes, because he got caught committing a new crime, so for that he should get a hearing because it is a new offense. And I think he was denied to a counsel, which violated his rights, but he should be entitled to one, not sure why they didn’t give him an attorney.
For instance, sometimes wrongfully convicted people get put in jail like in Adnan Syed’s case. 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.
Plea bargaining is a simple process but can have long term repercussions. 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.
After Fields conviction had been overturned, The U.S. government decided to appeal Fields case. 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.
He was ultimately overturned and killed in a humiliating way. Although, Henthorne got away with the murder of his first wife, he couldn't cash on his luck the second time around. 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