The case of Jimmy Dill versus the state of Alabama, the government’s denial of Dill’s defense led him to his tragic execution. In spite his mental disability and his experiences such as sexual abuse and lifelong struggles with drug and alcohol addiction, he did not receive the adequate legal assistance due to his financial issue, the court had not enough information, as a result, they declared him guilty. Dill did not have enough money to hire a better lawyer. Instead, he hired a lawyer that only costs a thousand dollars. It was not Dill’s currency that made him poor, according to the article, “The Crisis of Counsel in Alabama” by, Equal Justice Initiative, Alabama has a low compensation rate. With this rate, it prevents qualified lawyers from …show more content…
Since Dill appointed a lawyer that is limited to one thousand dollars, it also impacted his defense as the court claimed that his case had a lack of evidence to make reliable decisions. In the article, “Jimmy Dill” by, Equal Justice Initiative, tells us that the jury or the court, did not have any evidence about the victim did not die until nine months after the crime. “Neither the jury nor any court heard evidence about the circumstances under which the shooting victim did not die until nine months after the crime after evidence emerged that his caretaker failed to provide him appropriate treatment.” It is unfortunate for Dill that his caretaker did not give his proper treatment of his mental disability, causing the crime to take place and have a lack of evidence. Whether if justice and mercy are complementary or contradictory based on this certain case, it is clear that this case showing justice and mercy shows its opposition. The court never let Jimmy Dill have his pieces of evidence to gather up to support his
Name: Terry v. Ohio 392 US1 Supreme Court 1968 Facts: The incident occurred on October 31st 1963 at approximately 2:30pm in the afternoon. The police officer who was dressed in plain clothes was attracted by Terry and Chilton who were casing a store. With 30 years of prior experience in the area. The officer knew casing when he saw it. He had been assigned to that area specifically in search for shoplifters and pick pockets.
Case Brief: Maryland v. Pringle Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) Facts: In Baltimore County, a car was stopped by a police officer for speeding in the early morning hour. The car was occupied by three men identified as Donte Partlow (driver/owner), Joseph Pringle (respondent/front-seat passenger), and Otis Smith (back-seat passenger). When the officer asked Partlow for his registration, he opened the glove compartment where the officer observed a large roll of money inside the compartment, later confirmed as $763. The officer asked Partlow for consent to search the vehicle, which he consented.
The case involved an individual by the name of Danny Escobedo, who was arrested on January 19, 1960, for the murder of his brother-in-law. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and interrogated; he did not make any statement to the police and was released after contacting his lawyer. On January 30, Benedict DiGerlando, told the police about Escobedo’s involvement in the crime that Escobedo “had fired the fatal shots” (Escobedo v. Illinois- Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court, 1999, pg.2). He was later arrested a second time and taken to the police headquarters. Soon enough Escobedo requested to have “advice from my lawyer”
In the case of Gagnon v, Scarpelli( 1975), were Gerald Scarpelli and his friend Fred Kleckner were arrested in Illinois, on August 6, for burglarizing a house. The officer captures the two and read them their constitutional rights. Afterward, Scarpelli admitted that he and Kleckner did, in fact, broken into the home and take merchandise and money. Upon his arrest, his probation office revokes his probation without a hearing. His probation was revoked for associating with a criminal and catching a new charge.
The court case of State of Nebraska v. Gary E. Heitman deals with the conviction of Heitman on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault on a minor. “Heitman contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that he was entrapped” (Heitman p.1) while the court concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction” (Heitman p.1) and “further determined that the district court was not clearly wrong in finding that Heitman was predisposed to commit the crime and that thus, the district court was correct in rejecting his entrapment defense.” (Heitman p.1). I agree with the court’s rejection of the entrapment defense based upon things discussed in other entrapment cases and ideas brought up by
According to a portion of the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Otherwise meaning, any and all witnesses must be present for the trial to be considered fair and just. In the Supreme Court Case of Bryant v. Michigan, Bryant committed a crime, with the only witness being Anthony Covington. Bryant uses the Sixth Amendment as an aid in his trial.
On June, 2013 Ethan Couch a wealthy teen was speeding and caused a crash which he ended up killing four people and injured two. It turns out that his blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit. He could have faced twenty years behind bars but his attorneys claimed that his affluenza (a product of wealthy, privilege parents who didn’t set rules for him, and doesn’t know right or wrong) made him blameless for his actions. The judge didn’t give him a sentence but ordered for his parents to pay for treatment and got 10 years of probation. His parents agreed to pay $450,000 a year for his rehabilitation.
For my research on how the contextual themes concepts can result in criminal justice malfeasance I selected the case of State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-2470. This case involved police officer Julian Steele of the Cincinnati, Ohio police department and his indictment on ten counts of police misconduct, including abduction, intimidation, extortion, rape, and sexual battery. Officer Steele abused his legal power to interrogate, arrest and detain a witness by knowingly filing a materially false complaint in order to influence or intimidate a witness; and abducting her minor child from school with the intent of charging the minor child with a robbery felony ” (State v. Steele, 138 Ohio St.3d 1, 2013-Ohio-2470). Due to the nature of this case and its involvement of the minor children involved, the court documents refer to the subjects by initials only.
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark case that addressed the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases. The case came from the conviction of nine African American kids who were accused of sexually assaulting two white women on a train in Alabama in 1931. The nine kids were tried and convicted in a rushed trial that barley lasted a few hours, in which they were not provided with a legal counsel and were subject to intimidation and threats from the prosecution and the people outside the courthouse. The case raised important questions about the rights of criminal defendants to due process, legal counsel, and equal protection under the law. The ruling in the Powell v. Alabama case established the principle that even criminals are
Overview of Clements v. State The case of Clements v. State is an example of how the legal framework of stalking laws in Texas should be interpreted and the effectiveness of this law to ensure justice for the victims. The case depicts how the law should operate despite certain vagueness in aspects of the First Amendment. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas to uphold the conviction while disagreeing with some conclusions arrived at by the trial court proves that stalkers will not be allowed to slide through cracks in the legal system. The case, based on a sequence of events where the complainant, Jennifer Clements, was subject to psychological trauma accompanied by an imminent physical threat to her from Nathan Clement, her estranged husband, is a forthright condition of stalking which complies with the Statues of
The State of California v. George Milton Dear ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you to do one thing, imagine. Imagine you were in a foreign country with no money, friends, or possessions. Imagine you cannot speak the language and the culture is completely different than your natural environment.
In "The Ultimate Punishment: A Defense”, Ernest Van Den Haag, former professor at Fordham University, writes, “Punishments are imposed on persons, not on...economic groups”. Haag is completely brushes aside the truth that the death penalty is unjust to citizens with an unfavorable socioeconomic status. 95% of criminals on death row in the United States are originally impoverished citizens. These poverty-stricken defendants cannot afford lawyers, but the defense system available for them is commonly underfunded. As a result of this hindrance, court-appointed lawyers for these defendants are not compensated adequately, which results in a lack of competent lawyers due to low enticement.
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.
This is an interesting question to pose because Zurcher can see the inequality in the justice system, especially when it came to the case of Ethan Couch. Rather than allowing this teenage boy to take responsibility for his actions, money ultimately made the decision for him. Couch did wrong by drinking and driving and did even worse when he killed four people. Time and time again, it is shown that those who have money oftentimes come out of the courtroom with better news than those who are not as financially secure. If someone has money, they will be able to pay for the best lawyers out there.
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,