One of Danforth’s flaws is stubbornness. Then let him submit his evidence in proper affidavit. You are certainly aware of our procedure here, Mr. Hale (Miller 90).That he isn’t really trying to listen to what Mr. Hale got to say. Just hurry up and get the papers and evidence to get proceeded so we can be done with it.
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.
Judges should be open-minded and fair, and should appear and represent themselves to be fair and open-minded. They should be good listeners but should be able, when required, to ask questions that get to the heart of the issue before the court. They should be respectful in the courtroom but strong whenever it is necessary to overpower a rambling lawyer, a disrespectful litigant or an ill-mannered
The Ewell’s were lucky enough they were white because the color of their skin was the only reason their words were able to overrule Robinson’s. Although Tom is the innocent one, there was no way of his side winning, even having one of the best lawyers, Atticus Finch. This creates an illusion because even though Atticus seemed he was going to win, with his strong points made in the courtroom, the Ewell’s were still stronger for the color of their skin. Atticus seemed to have had a lot of power because he was known as a great lawyer but even he knows there was no way of him winning the case. “Atticus said, “I just wanted to make sure, Judge,” and the judge smiled”(Lee 224).
Drummond and Cates are both extremely admirable in regards to this matter. Drummond for instance said, “I am trying to establish, Your Honor, that (…) anyone in this courtroom – or you sir – has the right to think!” (Lawrence and Lee 71). What truly is on trial right now is the right to think. People of Hillsborough were constantly afraid of what others would think, so they made a decision not to think at all.
Adversary system is the government and the defendant, the government must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant can be convicted. The defense must present evidence before a jury and the jury decides on the case if either the defendant is guity or non guilty of the charge, this is known as a verdict. The idea of the court system is to show the truth to emerge either by the defendant or the prosecution. Each side of the trial the defendant and the prosecution have full opportunity to present their ideas and a truth would emerge between the two. In some cases, if it is acceptable with both parties, the judge can decide a case without a
The most important thing is that it simply provides citizens with the framework for our criminal legal systems. This Amendment is very important because it states American Citizens’ rights and what they are upheld to follow when they have been accused of a crime. This Amendment also prevents a defendant from sitting in prison longer than they are going to have too, which are using up other American tax dollars. I like this Amendment because it is impartial and without delay (unless for necessary reasoning). It does not give too much power to the jury nor the defendant.
Overall, the ideas in the article “The forgotten victim from Florence and Normandie” are agreeable and correctly handled in the situation. Many Ideas in the article were very meaningful. Lopez article was very good, glad that he mentions Fidel’s Lopez case. Not Everyone would have handled the same way Fidel did in such nonviolent way. Hopefully, people who have read the article and are ever in a position like Fidel Lopez they should handle it the same without
Therefore, Hart (2005) suggested that it is very important to cite correctly all the sources that we use in our reviews of the literature. There are three basic criteria for citing references: clear, consistent and correct. Moreover, Steward (2004) pointed out that appraisal is a process of critiquing the evidence of others, not attacking their work or engaging in character attacking. A reviewer should be moderate in criticism. Hart (2005) indicated that it is a good ethical practice and a good starting point for acquiring good academic standards in ethical
Evidence is being reviewed. The Federal effort in this case will be expeditious, and it will be fair. It will not be driven by mob violence but by respect for due process and the rule of law. We owe it to all Americans who put their faith in the law to see that justice is served.
The aftermath of the Branzburg v. Hayes trial brought a colorful range of opinions from the mass. One example is from a First Amendment attorney, James Goodale who defended Earl Caldwell at the time of his trial. When asked to describe the outcome of case he stated, “There was no reporter’s privilege in the federal courts… I just wasn’t going to buy that argument. […] I will argue that those five votes create a reporter’s privilege […] Our theory was, and is still to go back and fight this thing out state by state by state by state until we end up with enough body of law so that there’s protection for reporters.”
Seibert case Justice Souter continued to apply the basic assurances and the fundamental logic to the facts within this case. He then argued that in going over a specific mode of behavior for suitability in light of constitutional guarantees, the starting point issue is whether the procedure in question allows the Miranda to function effectively. Justice Souter then determined that within this case, the purpose of the divided questioning is to yield a confession before the perpetrator had been made aware of her rights, and then hope to have her repeat her original testimonial after being issued proper warnings. “Under the Justice Kennedy’s view, officers should be required to take curative steps and ensure that the suspect(s) understood that they were free to refuse making further statements, and that their prior statements were likely inadmissible, possible also requiring a break in time between periods of interrogation” (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004). “Justice O’Connor then suggested that the Court adopt a test that emphasizes in traditional factors for evaluating whether a statement is voluntary, followed by evaluating how the first statement relates to the second, including how closely related they are in time, location and identity of the interrogator” (Missouri v. Seibert, 2004).
The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt.