RATIONALE: The legal premise of the jury instructions was sound. Professor Glanville Williams states, on the basis of both UK and US authority, "To the requirement of actual knowledge there is one strictly limited exception...[The] rule is that if a party has his suspicion aroused but then deliberately omits to make further enquiries, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge." The Model Penal Code, Section 2.02(7) states, “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist." In several cases, the Supreme Court has applied the Model Penal Code definition of
The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith relied upon a defective search warrant (Siegel 2010). The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine states that evidence acquired illegally must be excluded from trial. This extension of the exclusionary rule is based on the same basis as the exclusionary rule itself, with the main goal of the doctrine to deter illegal police activity and to preserve the integrity of the court. The Supreme Court however, has permitted such evidence to be used in some proceedings (WEAL 2008). The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine differ because Fruit of
In the Supreme Court relied on the rule of "good faith" holding that the evidence obtained by the officers conducting inquiries based on a "good faith" court order that is subsequently found to be deficient is also admissible. The evidence would also be unusable if the officer prepared a judicial order under a sworn statement in a dishonest or negligent manner, if the magistrate who granted it abandons his neutrality, or if the court order lacks sufficient specificity. The Leon case only applies to search warrants. It is not clear whether the "good faith" exception applies to court orders about inquiries in other contexts. The 8 of January of 1974 , the Supreme Court ruled that the decisions of a grand jury can be based on alleged illegal evidence obtained in the cross-examination of a witness, because to argue otherwise would interfere with the independence of the grand jury, and the time to request the illegality of a search is after the defendant is
The court should uphold Comerford’s conviction on the basis of the following discussion. In analyzing whether or not a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred, it is necessary to determine if a search has occurred in the first place. Within the scope of the Fourth Amendment, a search constitutes an officer examining someone’s person, home, papers, or effects to find evidence of a crime. In other terms, a search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society readily recognizes as reasonable, as defined in Kyllo v. United States. Additionally, as further discussed in Kyllo v. United States, “obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the interior of a home that could not otherwise have been obtained
However, there are those who feel that just as the principle states, one is, and should be taken as a victim and the outcome could be either way: guilty or not guilty. In fact, this argument is supported by the many cases of malicious prosecutions and mistaken identities. The differences The due process model is pegged on the belief that it would be better if a criminal found innocent goes free rather than have one innocent person in jail. On the other hand, the crime control model argues that it is better to have a innocent person detained, questioned, tried and found innocent then let free than have a society full of criminals roaming
Another factor is having to prove the motivation for the crime. A jury, lawyer, or a judge will not be able to know exactly what the person was thinking during the time the criminal committed the crime. Only the criminal will know his intent. This means a lawyer is unable to “prove” the intent of the criminal, which leads to no other form of punishment than a criminal with no intent. If a criminal was found of prejudicial motivation, it is “unconstitutional to punish him for it” because the reason of punishment violates the First Amendment
The strongest objection to the principle of lex talionis is its incapability to explain why criminals who intentionally hurt their victims should be punished more than those who unintentionally cause harm, as it highlights the failings of lex talionis to determine equitable punishment (Russ Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, Fourth Edition, Oxford, 2018). This objection cannot be overcome as it cannot account for the difference in maxims of those who perpetrate the same crime whether it be intentional or not (185). Lex talionis' first fatal flaw of its inability to justly assign punishment to intentional and unintentional criminals is arguably the strongest objection to the principle (185). Lex talionis commands the government to treat
Strict Liability Offences, Fair and Just or a step to far. In a criminal trial the burden is on the prosecution to prove mens rea on the part of the accused, in doing so as to demonstrate intent, recklessness or knowledge on their part unless the crime is one of strict liability. The three types of mens rea which the courts take into consideration are set out as follows; Intent refers to the state of mind accompanying an act especially a forbidden act. It is the outline of the mental pattern which is necessary to do the crime. At times criminal intent is used in the sense of mens rea-the mental element requisite for guilt of the offense charged.
Ascertaining what, and how much, the defendant foresaw can be said to be key when distinguishing between the four categories, due to the fact that each category holds a different level of required foresight, resulting in different degrees of fault. On the other hand however there are also arguments to suggest that other factors are also crucial when deciding the classification of mens rea; for example the intended aim of the defender when conducting the unlawful crime, the reasonableness
The burden of proof is an obligation on one party to persuade the jury or a judge of an alleged claim. The defendant need not prove his own innocence; it is for the prosecution to prove that the defendant is guilty and the standard of proof here is beyond reasonable
RICO has led to revitalizing the interest in civil punishment. RICO has advanced the understanding of crime in criminal occupations and has been able to advance their knowledge of illegal behavior. I also believe that in order for someone to be indicted under the RICO act they must have knowledge of crimes they are committing. In order for the defendant to be liable he or she should have mens rea to establish that the crime committed was thought out. This is important because if the defendant had no knowledge of a connection with any sort of conspiracy they cannot be considered as a conspirator.
• There is no requirement that the State present testimony that precisely follows the language found in the indictment. This means not all variances are fatal. However, if there is a reasonable possibility that the jury convicted the defendant of the type of a crime in a manner not charged in the indictment, then the conviction is defective because of a fatal variance between the proof at trial and the indictment returned by the grand jury. 3. Outlines principles of law, as relevant to the Zizzi case, in relation to variances of the indictment concerning the use of
Within his argument in favor of merging his sentences under the required evidence test, Rivas-Membreno claims that “[w]ith respect to [his] conviction for soliciting witness intimidation, there is simply no evidence to support it.” If the State’s evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction with respect to a particular charge, the proper means of challenging the charge is to make a motion for judgment of acquittal under Md. Rule 4-324. If a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal, or fails to renew his motion at the conclusion of his presentation of evidence, the motion is waived. Md. Rule 4-324(c).
The doctrine states that courts are bound by decisions held in earlier cases. However, I agree with the reasoning in Johnson, a court should be allowed to correct the effects of a prior court ruling if the ruling was badly reasoned and has a negative impact on society. The criminal justice system, which includes the courts, was established to control crime and enforce punishments on those who violated the law. Stare decisis should not apply to a court correcting a prior court decision, which consequences resulted in contradicting the establishment of the criminal justice
1. The role of the criminal prosecutor is to prove that that defendant is truly guilty. It is there job to look at all the evidence that is available and use that evidence to show why it is true that that person committed the crime so that they are prosecuted the way that they need to be. The job of the criminal defense attorney is to look at all the evidence that the prosecutor is bringing forth and to show why that evidence is not reliable or does not have any proof that it is linked to the person being accused of the crimes. It is their job to try to keep the accused person from being sentenced.