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, …show more content…
The jury found him guilty and convicted him (Coy v. Iowa, 1988). Coy appealed and argued, “that Iowa Code 910A, which provides for the use of a screen in child sexual abuse cases, violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his accusers face-to-face” (Coy v. Iowa case brief, 2014). Coy also claimed, “the code violated his right to due process, since having a screen placed between him and the girls made him appear guilty before he was properly tried” (Coy v. Iowa case brief, 2014). Since Iowa Supreme Court upheld the statute (the procedure and the use of the screen), they affirmed Coy’s conviction (Thuet, 1994). However, Coy was not satisfied with the conviction and sough review by the United States Supreme …show more content…
Iowa (Coy v. Iowa case brief, 2014). “The majority found that the defendant’s right to face-to-face confrontation had been violated in the case” (Thuet, 1994, p. 16). The state argued that the purpose for the statue was too protect the children and without the protection some cases would not even make it into court. They argued that, if the child’s testimony went unheard there was no real vital evidence that would convict the defendant. However, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments from the state and stated that, “the necessity of protecting the victims of sexual abuse outweighed the right of confrontation” (Thuet, 1994, p. 16). This case was the first case that the Court conclusively stated that the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendants the right to a face-to-face meeting with the witnesses against them (Thuet, 1994). “Justice Scalia described the ‘irreducible literal meaning’ of the Confrontation Clause as the “’right to meet face-to-face all those who appear and give evidence at the trail” (Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)). When questioned about the fact that children witnesses can be damaged psychologically and also may fear the defendant, so that when taking the stand, their testimony might fall short of the truth. Justice Scalia stated, “confrontation may reveal a child witness who has been coached by a malevolent adult” (Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (1988)). Expressing
As with the previous trial, the “intent of purpose” comes into effect here. Each person had a slightly different role in acquiring their case, but it still falls under the same offense. They were both charged with sexual assault of a minor, and received due punishment. In conclusion, my experience of
This court case was about a man named Tim Hennis who murdered a mother whose name was Kathryn Eastburn and 2 of her daughters. The prosecution was The State Of Kansas and the Defense was Tim Hennis. They were arguing about if Tim was the killer of Mrs. Eastburn and her daughters. The facts of the case was that he was seen by a witness confessed to being there the night of the murder. The prosecutors are The State Of Kansas they believe that Tim Hennis raped and killed the mother and her two daughters.
Faisal Alanazi Prof. Meredith Doench ENG 200 11/1/15 Annotated Bibliography Robertson, Campbell. " Deal Frees ‘West Memphis Three’ in Arkansas. " The New York Times, Aug 19 (2011). Web.
Besides, in each government case, the gathering bringing the suit must build up remaining to arraign the activity. Generally the topic of standing is whether the prosecutor is qualified for have the court choose the benefits of the debate or of specific issues. It is shameful for the government courts to excite a case by an offended party whose remaining to sue is established on family law rights that are in question when arraignment of the claim may adversy affect the individual who is the wellspring of the offended party 's guaranteed standing. At the point when hard inquiries of household relations are certain to influence the result, the reasonable course is for the government court to stay its hand instead of connect with determination a profound inquiry of elected sacred law. There is an immeasurable contrast between Newdow 's entitlement to speak with his youngster which both California law and the First Amendment perceive and his asserted right to shield his little girl from impacts to which she is uncovered in school in spite of the terms of the guardianship request.
I. Questions Presented Under Kansas law, did Sara Ryker confess voluntarily under the circumstances when officers questioned her? 1. Does Ryker’s ability to communicate with the outside world upon request weigh in favor of a voluntary confession when she asked to use the phone and the officers told her she had to wait? 2. Do Ryker’s age, intellect, and background support a voluntary confession when she is 20 years old, possesses low intelligence, and has no criminal background?
The issue in this case revolves around the civil rights under the Constitution of the United States for a juvenile that is going through proceedings as a delinquent when there is a potential for incarceration. Gerald Gault was a 15-year-old that was accused of making an obscene telephone call to his neighbor, a Mrs. Cook, on June 8, 1964. Subsequently, Mrs. Cook filed a complaint with the police regarding the incident. Eventually that same day, Gerald Gault and Ronald Lewis, a friend, were arrested for the incident and transported to the Children’s Detention Home.
Policy Analysis: Megan’s Law Sexual violence, particularly against children, is a significant issue all around the world. In the early 1990’s in the United States, there were multiple well-publicized cases of sexual violence against children. From kidnappings, to rapes, and everything in between, violence was being committed against children and something needed to be done about it. In 1996, Megan’s Law was passed in response to the sexual assault and death of Megan Kanka, a seven-year-old from New Jersey (Corrigan, 2006).
J.D.B v. North Carolina, involved a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student. J.D.B was stopped and questioned by police when they observed him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, a digital camera matching one of the items from one of the home break-ins was found at J.D.B’s school and was observed to be in J.D.B.’s possession. Investigator Diconstanzo went to the school and a uniformed police officer went to the school and removed J.D.B. from his classroom and escorted him to a closed-door conference room. Police and school administrators questioned him for a minimum of 30 minutes; without giving him his Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his legal guardian.
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
The reporting party (RP) reported receiving a complaint from Robin Turner (360) 508-9344. According to the complainant approximately 2 months ago her granddaughter age 3 arrived home, removed her clothing and began touching her private body parts and posing sexually. The complainant questioned the child who stated she was playing the way she plays at her child care. Subsequently the complainant informed the child the play was inappropriate. On 3/13/17 at approximately 6PM while seated at the dinner table waiting for dinner to be served, the child stood up, removed her pants, protruded her "ass in a sexualized manner" and began touching her "butt.
Per Julie’s request I have made a summary of some of the witnesses that were called in the 2001 hearing transcript for a motion for a new trial. The specific witnesses in question are Donavan Rouse, Thrista Rouse, Lucritia Rouse, and Rosemary Rouse. All five of these witnesses maintained the same general story that they had lied in order to go back home, and that their uncles had never touched them in an inappropriate manner. All children also stated that the line of questioning from the FBI was the same for every child questioned.
Pretrial publicity has been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court since the 1960s. In the revolutionary case of Irwin v. Dowd, the defendant, Leslie Irvin, was convicted of committing six murders in a rural area of Indiana. The crimes generated extensive media coverage, in both television and print. Irvin argued that the pretrial publicity prevented him from receiving a fair trial by an impartial jury. It was found that 8 of the 12 jurors who heard the case had decided that Irvin was guilty before the trial began, which led the Court to agree with Irvin.
In the Supreme Court case New Jersey v. T. L. O., “TLO” (Tracy Lois Odem) had her pursed check by the school’s vice principal because a teacher had caught her smoking inside the girl’s bathroom. TLO then was convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs discovered during the search. She later fought the search and presented this case to the New Jersey Juvenile Court. The court found her guilty of delinquency, but TLO repealed and the court reversed this decision and asked the Supreme Court to review the case. This case shows how controversial the Fourth Amendment can be but it also reveals that in certain cases that searches against students can be unreasonable and therefore violating their constitutional rights.
The judge should have directed the jury correctly in relation to consent and the current position of the law. It should then be for the jury to decide whether this was against public interest or should be treated as it was in
In the case New York v. Ferber (1982), the Supreme Court in its ruling depicted that had the powers to prohibit child pornography even if to some point it does not meet Millers definition of obscenity. Even if work has serious artistic value, the inclusion of hardcore child pornography would deem it obscene. The state has the obligation of protecting children rights and has the mandate of preventing sexual exploitation of minors. The obligation of the state will surpass the importance of the work equaling repercussions of child pornography to the obscenity. In the case of Ohio v. Osborne (1990) the high court ruled an individual is liable to punishment for the private possession or viewing of child pornography.