Yes, he was worth quite a lump sum of money (approximately thirty million dollars). However, is that the only solid charge the courts had against him? That is a blow to the Justice System. How can such a large criminal only be brought down with petty charges? What can be done to fix that?
The respondent then sought collateral relief in the state court on numerous grounds, specifically among them was his assertion that counsel had rendered ineffective assistance at the sentencing proceeding. The respondent challenged his counsel’s assistance in six respects. He claimed that counsel was ineffective because he failed to move for a continuance to prepare for sentencing, failed to request a psychiatric report, failed to investigate and present character witnesses, failed to seek a pre-sentence investigation report, failed to present meaningful arguments to the sentencing judge, and failed to investigate the medical examiner’s reports or cross-examine the medical experts. The respondent then filed a habeas corpus petition in Federal District Court seeking relief on numerous grounds, including the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors.
I believe that the jury overlooked small but clear clues. Especially in the call between Neesha, Adnan, and Jay, which should have been investigated further. This is due to the fact that Neesha stated that Jay worked at a video store before he officially received the job.
Essentially, the war on drugs has demonstrated to be an exorbitant expense. The federal government in 2002 alone spent $18.822 billion in the form of expenditures such as treatment, prevention, and domestic law enforcement (CSDP, 2007, p. 54). However, given that the drug war has garnered meager results, this investment may be interpreted as a waste of taxpayer dollars. Alternatively, the money that has been allocated to arrest and detain drug offenders may also be a source of contention. CSDP (2007) “Of the 1,846,351 arrests for drug law violations in 2005, 81.7% (1,508,469) were for possession of a controlled substance.
I asked detainee Hargrow why he was in protective custody and why did he want to be housed on 1C. Detainee Hargrow could not articulate to me why he needed protective custody. He stated that while housed in Div.1 a year or two ago, he was jumped on by other detainee, this story seems deceptive because there are no incidents written to verify his claim. His other claim to pc is that he’s not in a gang, and wherever he goes the gang members steal his food.
Despite detailing the unfair treatment of baseball players at the words of the Reserve Clause, he never clarifies exactly how it is unconstitutional. He even mentions at several points where he talked to a lawyer friend about the case, as well as the executive board of the Players Association (130-131), but he doesn’t go into his specific legal arguments. While no one can argue for the Reserve Clause in terms of morality, if the clause doesn’t technically violate any laws in the Constitution, then the case is probably a lost cause. He closes out the article by trying to show the unconstitutionality of the clause using an analogy of an accountant in the same position (Flood 132), and if he had done the same thing while outlining exact violations of the Constitution in the process, this could have been a great article. As it is, it’s a very compelling thinkpiece that falls short with actual
Next, the court had no evidence that Damien Echols was the murderer of these boys. None of Damien, Jasons, and Jessie’s DNA was found by the river where the three boys were murdered. The court believed they were the murderers because, of the things they wore, music listened to, and their pasts. So, the court used their “evidence” based on judgment, but no real proof that it could be Damien. How can you be so incredibly ignorant to lock up someone who is innocent when you know they are.
According to the President’s Commission on the Assassination of Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald did kill President Kennedy by himself. I have to agree with them because evidence shows that there was only one killer, which was Oswald. To this day, it still is a mystery whether Harvey was even the killer, but the evidence that was found all points to him. According to the Commission, they found no evidence that anyone assisted Oswald on the assassination (177). He was not involved with any group, persuaded or encouraged by any foreign government, he was not involved with any political party, was not associated with the FBI, and there was no relationship between Oswald and Oswald’s’ killer Jack Ruby (177).
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?
Police are having trouble dealing with the enforcement of transgender laws. An article written by Nico Lang states “When transgender bathroom laws were passed there were no specifics on how to enforce it, leaving law enforcers without a way to promote the law.” No one ever made any rules on how to enforce the bathroom laws, leaving police without ways to support and enforce it. Andy Cush further explains this, “That means that even if a department does come up with a firm policy for policing bathrooms it’s not clear what to do if and when they catch someone.” The police have no way to punish transgender people for going into the wrong bathroom.
It’s noted that Farley claims does not contain sufficient probative evidence to determine Gann sexually harassed Farley. Even though it was two witness who saw Gann proceed with wrong doings, internal investigation confirmed his harassing conduct was commonplace, nor did other employees corroborate first-hand knowledge of events Farley contends that everyone witnessed (, n.d.). It is concluded that there isn’t enough sufficient evidence to establish for sexual harassment or a claim that ACIPCO in fact knew of the harassment but failed to take action ACIPCO 's enforced anti-sexual harassment
In McClesky v. Kemp the Supreme Court held that a study showing the death penalty in Georgia was imposed on black defendants disproportionately to white defendants failed to establish that any of the decision makers involved in the process acted with a discriminatory purpose. McClesky is a notable case in several respects. First, it highlighted the integrated nature of the criminal justice system and how each component functions to reach a certain result. Second, it emphasized the debate on which actors in the justice system have the most power and what role that power plays in reaching the result. Third, the case also underscored the importance on prosecutors keeping records of their decisions at varying stages of the criminal justice process.
Problem 143 The issue is whether Johnson was discharged by the alteration of the check and what reply should the bank’s attorney make. UCC §§3-115, 3-407, 3-406, and 4-401(d), addressed the alteration of instruments, whether an instrument is properly payable, the issue of discharge, negligence of an altered instrument and the good faith rule. It also addressed which party is liable when an instrument is altered and when is the bank is responsible to re-credit an account. Specifically, for this issue, I will use UCC §4-401 (d): A bank that in good faith makes payment to a holder may charge the indicated account of its customer according to: (1) the original terms of the altered item; or (2) the terms of the completed item, even though the bank knows the item has been completed un- less the bank has notice that the completion was improper.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford Supreme Court case has gone down in history as one of the most notorious cases and recognized as driving the country closer to civil war. The case became controversial in 1833, because Dr. John Emerson, purchased Dred Scott, and moved to the Wisconsin Territory. From the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in the Wisconsin Territory, therefore, making Scott a free man, right? After living there for a number of years Emerson moved to St. Louis and died in 1843 leaving Eliza Irene Sanford, Emerson’s wife, the owner of Scott and his family. When Scott asked for freedom, Stanford declined which lead to Scott suing the state court, where he won and was acknowledged as a free man.
John Marshall’s Supreme Court hearings had a positive effect on the United States. From court cases like McCulloch v. Maryland, declared that the federal courts could decide if state laws were unconstitutional. The McCulloch v. Maryland trial went to the supreme court because Maryland had put a tax in place that too 2% of all assets of the bank or a flat rate of $30,000. John Marshall saw this tax as unconstitutional for the simple fact that people were being denied their property under the state legislature. From the Gibbons v. Ogden case, congress’s power over interstate commerce was strengthened.