Miranda Prosecution: A Case Study

Furthermore, he installed razor wire in the walls to prevent the possibility of people hiding in his walls and went as far as believing there was eavesdropping devices in the billiard walls (John E. DuPont Trial: 1997-Trial, n.d.). Based on pretrial testimony, the court ordered on February 9, 1996 that John Du Pont undergo a competency examination and was later deemed mentally incompetent on March 18, 1996 for to stand trial in September 1996. Du Pont was remanded to Norristown State Hospital for treatment of paranoid schizophrenia. At his second competency hearing in December 1996 DuPont was determined to be competent to proceed in trial after being treated

Do you yearn to get into the deranged minds of criminals like the infamous Jeffrey Dahmer? When you become a highly trained doctor of forensic psychology, you get to do the job of the hit T.V show characters Dr. Huang from Law & Order: SVU and Dr. Reid from Criminal Minds. Police, judges, juries, and lawyers are all unable to determine if felons are mentally insane or fit for trial, nor are they able to counsel victims. However, the recently sought-after study of forensic psychology is able to consolidate the divide between legal matters and the mental processes of these criminals. Become part of a field that is recognized as one of the most undeniably important parts of today 's legal system by becoming a forensic psychologist (Watchel).

American sniper Chris Kyle was murdered February 2, 2013. His murderer Eddie Ray Routh plead insane and blamed mental illness, he was found guilty of his crimes and sentenced to life in prison after the evidence of him ordering fast food after the murder was brought forth. An act he cannot perform with his “mental illness.” Ruth Lee Johnson J.D. graduate of Harvard Law school writes about the defense saying “Insanity is a legal term, not a medical term.” This gives the jury the power to determine insanity, opposed to a psychologist.

Defense attorneys are confronted with the new regulation “special administrative measure” (SAM) as it seemed to overlook the underlying ethical issue. Defense attorneys fully abide by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, they abide by Rule 1.6, which is the requirement of confidentiality. The rule prohibits the use of attorney-client communication as evidence before a court of law. The ethical rule demands that “a lawyer shall not reveal information to the representation of the client.”

“So it’s Dennis’ fault you were raped?” Li inquired. The question took Tom by surprise and he stared at the therapist with wide eyes. “No!

W. Bush said “Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend.” OTHER - The police are, and always haves been, the protectors of our freedoms- we need non corrupt officers to be able to do that - It is such a big issue, that October 22 has been named the National Anti Police Brutality Day - Some policy officers take advantage of the power/authority they have - In many cases citizens have not taken legal action against the corrupted police which is necessary for an overall end to the brutality to be achieved - The law states that we are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent - Cops receive an unfair favorable treatment when it comes to not getting indicted - Police generally believe and act as if they are above the law COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: but the police are our authority and they are just trying to protect us? They are using excessive force when it is unnecessary and this is more harmful than

When the police are asking questions i think the people should have the right to have a lawyer present and the reason to having a lawyer present is to protect you and the lawyer can make the police to stop asking me or anyone questions the lawyer also fights for you in court and if the lawyer is good then you could possibly be set free. that 's why the people of our country should know are constitutional rights, that 's why miranda got arrested in the first place is he didn 't know anything about our rights and he set there and let that cop make him confess and the bad part about all of this is the cop knew the rights but chose not to read them to him,i thank 9f miranda would have known his rights that cop wouldn 't have been able to set there and just keep

When a court allows a good-faith exception, they allow evidence that was technically obtained illegally, via an invalid search warrant, to be used in court if an officer seized said evidence in “good-faith”. If an officer acquired evidence in “good-faith,” this means that he or she was not aware of the invalid-ness of the search warrant. In contrast, if an officer is aware of the invalid search warrant, but still proceeds to attain evidence, the good-faith exception will not be applied and the evidence will not be allowed in

Mallard stated that during these interviews he was asked to put “forward his own theories of how it had been committed” (Fair Trials 2013). This demonstrates the denial of the rights of the accused as a mentally ill suspect was taken advantage of and coerced into admitting guilt. This can be seen as coercion and a violation of Mallard’s right to not be compelled to admit guilt (ICCPR). Mallard was questioned continually by police, during which he was bullied and assaulted. This demonstrates the denial of justice, as the police investigation was deeply flawed and conducted unethically.

Mallard stated that during these interviews he was asked to put “forward his own theories of how it had been committed” (Fair Trials 2013). This can be seen as coercion and a violation of Mallard’s right to not be compelled to admit guilt (ICCPR). Mallard was questioned again and again by police, during which he was bullied and assaulted. This demonstrates the denial of justice, as the police investigation was deeply flawed and conducted unethically. Mallard consistently refused to sign interviews as they did not accurately reflect what was said, despite this they were admitted into evidence, and crucial in his conviction.

FACTS: The defendant (Lake) encountered Clarke sitting on the beach and he demanded Clarke’s white car keys for several times. But, when Clarke refused, Lake pulled out a gun and walked Clarke out to the water. At that time, Clarke saw his friend (Croaker) and he called out to warn her. Thereafter, Lake saw her and demanded her car’s keys. When she refused, he held the gun to Croaker’s head and she gave him the keys.

The court ruling of the Madrigal v. Quilligan case further illustrated injustice. Dr. Rosenfeld had met with Antonia Hernandez, a new lawyer, and discussed the crimes being committed at the LAC+USC hospital. She assembled ten women that were victims of the forced sterilizations, leading to a class action lawsuit against the hospital. The argument was that the women's’ rights were violated as their constitutional right to bear children had been violated.

There have been several courts in many states that have lowered the ages at which youths could be tried in adult criminal courts and expanded the ranges of young offenders that are subject to adult adjudication and punishment; at the same time, the severity of the penalties available to the juvenile court increased (Grisso, 2003). With the current legal developments have raised an important issue of developmental capacities needed to participate effectively in their trials (Grisso, 2003). Although courts and legislatures in some states have determined that youths adjudicated in juvenile and criminal courts must be competent, but there has been little recognition that youths in criminal court may not meet these standards due to developmental

The U.S. Constitution allows for freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by public sector officials. This is stated in the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. The public sector cannot search personal belongings without probable cause, or in most situations a warrant. Vile cites (Vile,J,2010, A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments,p.141)," The Fourth Amendment thus begins by specifying that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated. "