Residential Burglary Case Study

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense. I ask you what is self defense when the man she murdered laided defenseless and unconscious on his bed? The defendant is only claiming that she acted in self defense to get away with the cold-blooded murder of the man she claimed to love.

Many people, if asked what they would prefer, would prefer to read the book instead of watching the movie. It could be because the movie will always leave some parts from the story out. It seems like directors of the movie always leave out parts from the book, only incorporating the important parts from the story. Some also say that they prefer to leave the descriptions of things in the book up to their imagination. Also, when you are reading the book, you get to read the main characters point of view on things. You get to see what goes on in their mind while they go through their everyday life. After reading the play Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, I would say that there were many similarities between the play and the movie, but there were also many differences.

The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children.

In 1993 17 year old Christopher Simmons and two friends, John Tessmer and Charles Benjamin had planned to murder Shirley Crook. Then night of the murder one of the men , John Tessmer dropped out but Simmons and Benjamin carried out the plot. Around 2 am the men broke into Crook’s house through a window and committed robbery. Later, the two men entered Crook’s home and tied up the victim and covered her head. The suspects drove Crook to a nearby State park and threw her body into the Meramec river. Shirley Crooks husband, Steven Crook arrived at the house on September 9th and reported his wife missing. The same day the Steven Crook reported his wife missing a man fishing on the Meramec river had found the dead body of the victim. The day following the discovery of Shirley Crooks body the police had learned of Simmons bragging about the killing. The police then went to the high school that simmons attended and arrested him. The police had arrested Simmons and wanted to ask him some questions, Simmons agreed to cooperate with police and answer some questions. It would not be long before Simmons confessed about the murder of Shirley Crook. The case was then brought to trial in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Missouri with loads of evidence against Simmons.

The intended scope of the apology is also a matter of dispute. The requested apology is dependent in part on Coach Snow 's intent in asking for it. The Coach 's purpose in making these statements to Brian is not easily ascertained and requires inferences drawn from the Coach 's behavior throughout the meeting and the broader controversy.

For the Application of the Criminal Justice System project of the Criminal Justice course, I chose the arrest of John Burke. This case is about the arrest and sentencing of John Burke who had shot and killed Joseph Ronan. Twenty-five year old John Burke agreed to meet with 22 year old Joseph Ronan at Ronans home, in Reading, Massachusetts on Monday, August 15, 2011 around 1pm, with the intent of purchasing Percocet pills. (Boston.com, 2013) However, shortly after entering Ronans home, Burke opened fire (News, 2011), and after shooting Joseph Ronan several times, with the belief that Ronan was involved in a robbery at Burkes apartment in April 2011 (Boston.com, 2013), fled the home. Ronans grandfather (Daniel, 2011), who had been in the home

The Supreme Court of the United States of America in 2012 ruled that juveniles couldn’t be tried as juveniles and be sentenced to life without the possibility of bail, no matter how harsh the nature of the crime committed. Justice Elena Kagan argues that juveniles who commit crimes typically have a rough upbringing or unfortunate circumstances which cannot be controlled by the juvenile. She argues that if they are serving a life in prison without a chance of parole, it causes damage to them psychologically due to the lack of experiences. They will miss the most important moments in life that define who they are as an individual. Elena Kagan thought to believe that juveniles and their cases should be going to court with the consideration of age, immaturity, impetuosity, and behavioral circumstances. Approximately 2,500 juveniles have been charged with life in prison without the possibility of parole as adults before the Supreme Court ruling in 2012.

The question before us is whether the medical examiner found a match between Kelbel and Kailyn Montgomery’s bodily conditions.

“A person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.” In the play, Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose, a nineteen years old is on trial for the murder of his father. After many pieces of evidence were presented, the three that are weak include the one of a kind knife, the old men who heard the words “I’m going to kill you!” and the woman who is in question because of her glasses. Based on these, the boy is not guilty.

Our Constitution has long required the criminally accused to be tried by their peers. The question before us today is whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of the decision in Ring v. Arizona., 536 U.S. 584 (2002). We hold that it does violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

As with any criminal case, there are always a number of issues pertaining the stages of the crime and also the media and the general public’s opinion of the case. Many of the issues and explicit actions of certain individuals that had happened during the Corryn Rayney case had affected the interpretation of the case in someway for both government workers and the general public. By analysing the issues of the case, it allows a much more detailed view on the case and how most of the issues are linked in one way or another.

“On July 30, 1992, an innocent person was convicted of a heinous crime”. Guy Paul Morin, an ordinary man, was arrested, imprisoned and convicted of first degree murder. The victim was Christine Jessop, a nine-year-old girl from Ontario, Canada. She was found murdered in a field about fifty kilometres from where she lived. Due to the investigation team’s carelessness and tunnel vision, the systematic failure of the justice system, and the poor handling of evidence by the crown there was not only one, but two victims in this case.

Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population. It can be argued that the jury was not a proper representation of his peers. Along with other factual errors surrounding Dixon’s false conviction,

In our society, crimes are being committed not only by adults but by juveniles as well. By law as soon as a person turns 18 they are considered to be an adult. So what if an adult and a juvenile were to commit the same crime yet were sentenced differently simply based on the fact that one is a child and one is an adult? Juveniles are committing violent crimes just as adults and should be given the equal treatment and sentencing as adults receive. Juveniles aren’t completely ignorant as everyone seems to think. In fact they are quite clever. If juveniles are capable of committing heinous crimes who knows what else they are capable of. Yet not all crimes juveniles execute aren’t evil crimes and should not be treated in such a harsh way. Juveniles should be tried as

Juveniles should be tried as adults due to being aware of their crimes and having an intention to kill, however, brain development and maturity can play a role into the reason why teens kill. With being tried as an adult juveniles should be granted the opportunity of freedom pending on their rehabilitation status and if requirements are not met, convicts will have to complete the remainder of their sentence.