Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, appellant, Robert Eugene Caldwell (“Caldwell”), was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary. The jury, however, acquitted Caldwell of seven other charges. For each of Caldwell’s conspiracy convictions, he received 15 years’ incarceration with all but five years suspended, and five years of supervised probation. On appeal, Caldwell presents three issues for our review, which we rephrase and reorder as follows: 1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Caldwell’s motions for a mistrial.
The case of R. V. Askov began in November 1983 when Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion against Peter Belmont. On top of Extortion they had multiple existing firearm charges to which they severed 6 months in prison for these offences, and were initially denied bail until May 7th, 1984. After being released, their preliminary hearing for the extortion charge was set in early July 1984. The hearing wasn’t completed until September 1984. The actual trial was then set for the first date available, in October 1985, but in turn got delayed until September 1986 2 years later.
Even with the absence of a defendant local police and US federal agent entered Week residence without a warrant and seized evidence related to “illegal gambling which they wished to use against Weeks in a criminal gambling crime” (Ingram p.81). Before his trial, “Weeks requested the return of documents that the federal government sought to use against him, however his request was denied and he was eventually partly convicted based on evidence illegally taken from his residence” (Ingram p. 81). However, during his appeal before the United States Supreme Court Weeks argue that his Fourth Amendment rights was violated when federal agents seized the documents that was used as evidence against him in the trial court and the Court agreed and reversed Weeks
Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee Facts: On the morning of August 7th, 1999 at 3:16 a.m., a Baltimore Police Officer conducted a stop on a passenger car for speeding. As the officer approached the car he noticed it was occupied by three males one of which was the respondent, Joseph Jermaine Pringle located in the front passenger seat. As the driver retrieved the vehicle’s proof of registration for the glove compartment located in front of Pringle, the officer noticed what appeared to be a large amount of currency rolled up in the glove compartment in plain view. After obtaining the driver’s license and registration, the police officer went back to his patrol car and conducted a check for warrants and prior traffic violations.
Family: Dionisio is a 17 year old Hispanic male who resides in Clark, NJ with his mother, Sonnia Estremera. When CM first received Dionisio’s case Mrs. Estremera reported that youth has difficulties following household rules. She reports that Dionisio needs reminders to complete basic household chores such as throwing out thrash. It was evident that there was a breakdown in communication between Dionisio and his mother. Since Dionisio has been attending family therapy at Trinitas Child and Adolescent Outpatient Department there has been in improvement in youth and his mother relationship. Due to Dionisio non-complaint behavior at Trinitas Child and Adolescent Outpatient Department he was recommended to attend IOP at High Focus Centers in Cranford. Dionisio and his mother continues to address their family challenges in family therapy at the High Focus Center in Cranford. It appears that both Dionisio and Mrs. Estremera are both invested in family therapy. Mrs. Estremera also reports that Dionisio behavior in the home has improved and she is proud of the progress that he has been making so far.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common
The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt. When investigators at the crime scene unlatched and then re-latched her seatbelt, the wife’s chin was directly above the bloodstain. She was shot under the chin, therefore it was previously concluded that it must have been her blood present on the seatbelt. However, the Illinois State Police crime lab proved that it was in fact Christopher Vaughn’s blood on it. His wife’s blood was also found on the center console, but it was disturbed before it began to congeal. In addition, it appeared that some of her blood on the console was wiped towards the passenger seat from the driver’s seat. Kish concluded that someone had come into
During the course of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to another serious crime. Ultimately, the courts decided that since Miranda had not been informed of his fifth amendment rights and had not waived them, his confession was not valid. It is because of this case that law enforcement officers today read what is known as
It is fraud, you know it is fraud! What keeps you man?" (Miller 78). Those who were unhappy did not believe the court was protecting the innocent people the way they should. Some members of the community think that the court is not handling the prosecutions correctly and their decisions should be revised.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States, by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York and the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney, submits this opposition to defendants’ jointly-filed motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue. The People allege that the defendants, Doug O’Dwyer, Josh Johnston, and James Johnston, were active participants in a criminal conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. The activities of this conspiracy ranged from Syracuse, NY to Toledo, Ohio. Syracuse is within the Northern District of New York, thereby providing a proper basis for venue.
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession. If the
The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.
R. v. Grant,  2 S.C.R. 353 Background: Appeal by accused of court decision to admit evidence of firearm despite there being a violation of protected Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), which was dismissed by trial judge finding no Charter breach had occurred. Issue: What constitutes detention and should the evidence be dismissed under s. 24(2) of the Charter and whether the admitting of firearm brings administration of justice into disrepute?