John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders. Robert Taliento handled and cashed the money orders on his machine. This was the story Taliento gave to the grand jury and John Giglio was prosecuted; Taliento was named a co-conspirator but not indicted on charges. Giglio requested for a new trial was denied by lower courts but The Supreme Court reversed it. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the evidence that wasn’t revealed obligated a new trial under the due process standards that has been created in the Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois.
Innocence is is a lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence refers to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime. Being convicted of a crime and found not guilty later on can frustrate the convict and the convict’s family as the time spent behind bars, is time they will never get back.
The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had the greatest impact on Race Relations in America because it created a legitimate definition of the citizenship. Scott, a former slave, stated that because of his occupancy in a free state, he is a free man. The other side argued that Scott was still a slave and according to the fifth amendment, no person (master) can be deprived of their property. The initial impact of the case was in favor of the slave owner but this decision was overturned by the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery and the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States included former slaves who had been freed after the Civil War.
Civil forfeiture was originally created with noble and worthwhile intentions. The goal was to battle against crime and budgetary restrictions at the same time, which is very logical. However, over the years civil forfeiture has been warped, and in many cases causes more harm than good. It is important to understand both the positive and negative aspects of civil forfeiture in order to see the big picture of the situation and be able to stand against the issue as a member of society.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on.Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education).
Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana.
The city council offered compensation to Brown for his false arrest. During an emergency meeting, the City Council approved a $300,000 promissory note to Dennis Brown, whose conviction for rape was overturned in 2004 after DNA evidence suggested he couldn’t have been the suspect (Thibodeaux). This information shows how Brown’s case was false, and he was therefore compensated for it. Brown also felt the need to take legal action for his case. He sued the city police officers, claiming his civil rights were violated for forcing him to confess (Thibodeaux). This evidence highlights the problem with his case, showing the laziness and carelessness of the police officers. The money that Brown is being paid for his compensation, is also getting paid in increments. The $300,000 is being paid in annual installments of $30,000 plus $1.1 million from the city insurers (Thibodeaux). The information here shows the result of the case, costing the city
The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) was a Supreme court case deciding whether or not flag burning is supported by “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson is caught burning the American flag in Dallas, Texas in 1989 to protest Ronald Reagan`s policies. When Johnson had burned the flag during the protest the state of Texas arrested him for desecrating a venerated object. Although Johnson did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone witnesses and spectators claimed to be seriously offended by seeing Johnson burn the flag. Most of the people in the courtroom were sided with Gregory Johnson supporting the fact that flag burning is considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment. The case was wrapped up
The Texas versus Johnson case is a case where the state of Texas is arguing that Johnson should be charged and reconvicted. Johnson was a criminal, and he was wrong in his actions. Texas understands that, and they are going to argue the side of justice. Johnson should’ve turned himself over while he had the chance, but he decided to fight his side of the case. He has those rights. Johnson should be charged and found guilty for his violation of Texas state law.
In the documentary film, “Kids for Cash”, Robert May shows his audience the horrors of the Luzerne County justice system. He uses imagery, appeals to logos and pathos, personal experiences and anecdotes to support his claim. Robert May made this documentary to show the world that the government needs to make sure that even minors have a fair trial and justice before being incarcerated.
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.
The amount of money taken is proportionate to the amount given this week. I and the police are still taking down the many Deny Gooh foundation buildings for search for more evidence or records for the case. Though they did take the money, the two new business owners announced that they had some help from an “unknown” associate. Most of the money had been given to them with out the knowledge that it had been stolen from the foundation, and a large majority of the money had been taken by the unknown entity as a “fee”. They soon realized after seeing the news report on television that they had a problem. I discovered that they rented a I-haul truck and headed out to the Nevada to buy land for their new HQ. The police have accused none other than the infamous animal strangler Noel as the true criminal. I found out that Noel uses his money to buy many animals of many countries and strangle them. This is a very expensive hobby, and it is animal abuse. Noel has been detained by me, and is being interrogated by the police to confirm his involvement to the case.
A years-long inquiry into the IRS’ mishandling of tax-exempt requests from Tea Party-leaning political groups recently resulted in no charges being brought about.