The Case Of Mr. Griffin V. Salt Lake County Jail

Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.

The article was released on May 12, 2004. The article was written for the newspaper that Nigel writes for, Willamette Week (Jaquiss). “For his investigation exposing a former governor 's long concealed sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old girl” (Jaquiss). The investigators mostly interviewed people that had connections to or knew Goldschmidt or the girl, who they referred to as Susan. This was the best way to get opinions and information from lots of different people (Jaquiss). The investigation’s goal was to expose Neil Goldschmidt for his sexual affairs with a 14 year old girl. The author also helped people know how greatly these events impacted the girl. She was a smart girl with a strong ambition prior to the raping, but afterwards she dropped out of school, had many neurological diseases such as depression and post traumatic stress disorder, and was arrested numerous times due to possession of drugs (Jaquiss). Her life was completely ruined, yet she still looked up to Goldschmidt. ““I want to personally make sure you get shit for this,” she told Portland officer Clarence Lankis, according to his report. “Neil Goldschmidt is my best friend.”” (Jaquiss). Even though she said this, she still hired a lawyer in 1994. ““In cases where girls have been abused, they often don 't come forward until their 30s or

Good Afternoon your honor, I am filing a motion for the admissibility of Cameron Awbrey’s statement because there is clear signs of attenuation between the statement given and the arrest. I will prove my case by providing examples of precedent cases similar to the laws involved in Cameron's case.

Ronald Rompilla, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Stated in 2005. This case was about the death of James Scalon, whose body was discovered in a bar in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Scalon had been stabbed multiple times and was set on fire. Ronald Rompilla was indicted for murder and other related offenses, and the Commonwealth asked for the potential of the death penalty. Rompilla was found guilty on all counts during the penalty phase. The prosecution sought to prove three aggravating factors to support the death sentence: that the murder was committed in the course of another felony; that the murder was committed by acts of torture, and that Rompilla has a significant history

Key Facts: On December 18, 1992, two brothers were shot and killed in their Houston home after throwing a party the previous night. Police obtained six shotgun shells from the site and received a description of a potential suspect from a local neighbor. The investigation led the police to Salinas, who willingly agreed to relinquish his shotgun for ballistics testing and to accompany police for further questioning. The interview lasted approximately one hour, where both parties were later in agreement that Salinas was not detained nor was he read Miranda warnings. Salinas answered most questions during the interview, but fell silent when asked if “his shotgun ‘would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder.’” Upon receiving more

In the early 1990’s the U.S. Supreme Court case Roper v. Simmons took place and at the same time cases that were similar were also being heard. This case involved the defendant Christopher Simmons, who commited the crime, and Donald P. Roper, the plaintiff, who was the superintendent of Potosi Correctional Center and was representing the state of Missouri. The case would never have happened if it wasn't for the actions of 17-year old Christopher Simmons of Missouri in 1993. Simmons and a couple of his friends concocted a plan to murder Shirley Crook for reasons unknown. Only Simmons and one of his two friends commited it burglarizing Crook’s residence, binding her up and then driving to a state park and throwing her full of life body off a

In 1963, the Gideon v. Wainwright case violated the United States Constitution as the court did not grant Gideon his constitutional right to be provided counsel. Clarence Earl Gideon committed many nonviolent crimes in his early life but on June 3, 1961, Gideon was involved in a burglary in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Between midnight and 8:00 am, he broke a door, smashed a cigarette machine and a record player, and stole money from a cash register. Based on a witness’s account, the police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny. When Gideon went to trial, he requested an attorney to represent him. The judge of Florida denied his request because under the state laws

The role the United States court system plays in the creation and implementation of criminal

On January 3, 2016, defendant James Baskin along with Tyron Taylor was accused of killing Larry Ellis Jr. The victim Larry Ellis Jr. was shot multiple times in the chest and was pronounced dead at the crime scene around 4:00 am. It was said the shooting took place because they were trying to rob him for drugs. Allegedly, Mr. Ellis gave Mr. Baskin a dipper which is a cigarette dipped in PCP. Mr. Ellis had a small bottle of PCP on him prior to the robbery and when robbed the bottle of PCP was in the sock of Mr. Tyron Taylor. It is not clear whether Taylor or Baskins who shot Mr. Ellis. A message was sent to the phone of Mr. Baskins stating “I’m omw” from Mr. Taylor. Mr. Baskins is a resident of the District of Columbia and Mr. Taylor is a resident

Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation. Miranda never receive notice of his rights.

In another way, the court case of Mallory v. Hogan is the right against self-incrimination in the fifth Amendment. William Mallory was found guilty and sentenced to jail with a fine. But, it was suspended and the court placed him on two years probation. However, within the time period of the probation, the Superior Court "appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County." Mallory refused to incriminate himself and he was imprison for contempt the court and held until he willing to confess himself. Thing didn 't end there, he filed a habeas corpus against the court for violating his constitutional right. The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted him certiorari, over the decision of the

The basic facts on the case of Coy v. Iowa (1988) are that: The defendant John Avery Coy was arrested in August of 1985, on charges of sexually assaulting two thirteen-year-old-girls (Coy v. Iowa, 1988). The state prosecutor made a motion, at the trail of Coy, to allow the two girls to testify behind a screen or by using a closed-circuit television, to avoid further traumatizing the thirteen-year-olds (Coy v. Iowa, 1988). Before this case, “ The Iowa legislature’s purpose was to assure the fair and compassionate treatment of victims and to protect them from intimidation and future injury. Iowa stature allowed for a child to testify via closed-circuit television or by videotape” (Thuet, 1994, p.11). Therefore, because of Iowa’s statutory procedure,

In the case of Fare versus Michael C., the question at hand is whether a juvenile defendant requesting to speak with his probation officers was a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. The important issue was to dissect rather Michael C. requesting to have his probation officer present was equivalent to an attorney representation. When informed that this was not possible, he waived his rights and made admissions. In 1979, police officers arrested sixteen-year-old Michael C. involving him in a murder that occurred during a robbery in the victim's home. Since the age of twelve, Michael had been on probation and had a long criminal offense background. He was arrested and brought to the Van Nuys, California police station for

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct. This landmark case affirmed that the 6th Amendment applies to all states under the 14th Amendment. Not only did the video show the importance of the amendments to the constitution, it also demonstrated the possible pitfalls of judicial review, but also its ability to ensure the personal rights provided by the constitution are not

The question about the federal government that I address in this assignment is about the citizens’ rights that the Fifth Amendment to the United States’ Constitution contains, along with the Miranda rights. Based on what we discussed in Chapter 4, the Fifth Amendment includes the right that protects the American citizens from self-incrimination in the event of an accusation. In that regard, the right, together with the Miranda right that gives citizens the right to clamp up provides immunity for the involved citizen against police interrogation that could culminate in forced and unfair self-incrimination. Even so, the current system of law enforcement is such that police officers can ask the accused any question they want without informing