According to Florida statute, there is a total of six issues regarding competency to proceed. First, a competent defendant should be able to understand the course of the legal process, as well as the adversarial nature of the justice system. Second, a defendant should have the ability to understand and appreciate the allegation of the accusations against him. Third, the defendant must have the capacity to behave appropriately while in the courtroom during trial or litigation. Fourth, a defendant should demonstrate an understanding of the potential consequences and legal actions that are likely to be imposed if or when he is charged with the crimes as accused. Fifth, the defendant should be able to disclose facts or relevant information relating …show more content…
Blaine would significantly struggle with a number of the competency criteria based on the information provided. For instance, one of the areas that Joey might have a considerable amount of trouble in meeting the criteria for competency to proceed is in the first standard of competency, which relates to having the simple understanding of the legal process and the adversarial nature of the justice system. Considering that Mr. Blaine only has a 3rd grade level of reading and writing skills, it’s highly unlikely that he will have any degree of rational or functional understanding of the legal proceedings as mentioned in the first prong of the Dusky standard, even if he is provided with both written and oral instruction or notice. Oral instructions probably wouldn’t help him either since Mr. Blaine easily becomes confused while in conversation with others. This may also pose a serious problem with how effectively Mr. Blaine might communicate his lawyer and/or defense team, which is in opposition of the second prong of the Dusky standard as well. Furthermore, if Mr. Blaine is unable to comprehend the legal process or efficiently communicate his defense than he is also unlikely to truly understand the potential penalties if the court prosecutes him on charges of
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.
(Miller 87). Danforth’s strong will and great faith in the court results in an ignorance that prevents him from being open minded to any other possibility. He does not
Who killed Hae min lee? Hae min lee was your typical teenage girl who was then murdered and buried in a park. The park called Leakin Park which is about a seven minute drive from the school she went to. A man named Mr. S, a janitor at Hae's school, found her body in this park while trying to go use the bathroom. Hae's body was found in Leakin Park next to a fallen tree.
As Lawyer Farrington said, Lou Dempsey was accused of illegally selling alcohol to the minor, Eric Howe. Mr. Dempsey failed to meet his responsibilities of asking for identification and anticipating violence and/or accidents caused from alcohol. The amount of alcohol that was given to Mr. Howe, allowed each member attending the party to dissipate their sobriety after drinking four standard cups.
In the case of Timothy Ivory Carpenter V. UNITED STATES Did the government overstep its bounds in Detroit without getting a probable cause warrant, and did the government violated the 4th amendment of Timothy Ivory Carpenter? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,but upon probable cause, the police have the right to searched, and the persons or things to be seized. That is the 4th amendment. So what are the facts of the case then? (“United States v. Carpenter.”
In the case of Ohio v. Clark, Darius Clark states that by using a three and a half year olds word as testimony, it violates his sixth and fourteenth amendment rights. He argues that this child is not “mature enough to give reliable testimony, uninfluenced by those who might try to shape what they say and unaffected by the pressure of a trial setting” (Denniston 2). Although the man pleaded guilty to the charges of child abuse and received 28 years of prison time, he knows that his sixth amendment right was violated and is fighting against it. The use of someone that “is incompetent to appear in court as a witness” violates the sixth amendment and the fourteenth amendment pertaining to the Due Process Clause filed under it in Section I (Ohio
Heading: - Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 (1984) II. Facts & Procedural History - In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police.
“The Innocence Project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice.” The mission of the Innocence Project is to exonerate people who they believe don’t belong in jail and aren’t guilty of the crime they were convicted for. People write to them asking for them to investigate on difference cases and they will evaluate potential cases by gathering information about each case application and see if they can determine whether DNA testing can be conducted. Christopher Abernathy was one of the many people who they successfully exonerated. Christopher was convicted for murder, rape, and robbery.
. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence a mental health expert in a criminal trial can not offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). However, in a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.(704(b)).
By fair Jury, the trial must take place in the county the crime took place. The accused have to know what they 're being charged with, why they 're in jail, who said they did it, and ask them questions. Put cues can force anyone to come to their trial and the cutest also has the right to a lawyer and if they can 't afford one they will
Since the stakes are so high in these cases, there is a high burden of proof on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond
Summary of the Incident Only eleven days into his new job as a New Jersey State Police trooper, Justin Hopson witnessed an act by his training officer that would challenge his moral convictions and change his life forever. During a traffic stop in March 2002, Hopson watched his partner arrest a woman for drunk driving who had not even been behind the wheel. Throughout the court proceedings in this case, Hopson chose not to violate his principles, and refused to validate his partner’s version of events surrounding the arrest. From that point forward, Hopson was targeted by fellow officers in an effort to silence him about this event, and other alleged police misconduct.
So, in many, if not most, of the cases, the accusers and the accused were unacquainted. Boyer and
1. Facts: Explain the essential facts of the case. Tell the story of the case. Jacob Winkleman is a 6-year-old student at Pleasant Valley Elementary School in Parma, Ohio. Jacob was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and is covered under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Act or IDEA), 84 Stat. 175, as amended, 20 U. S. C. §1400 et seq.
Many of the jurors use logos, logic and reasoning, to lay out the evidence in a rational and concrete manner to convince him. An example is when 4th Juror lays out all of the evidence of the knife to convince 8th Juror with seven, linear, factual points. The reader and audience is meant to connect a sense of ethos, reliability or competence, to 8th Juror, as he is the only one who doesn’t, at first, seem to be clouded by ignorance, racism, disinterest, or any other characteristic that might cloud