Issue Case name: State of Oregon vs Kenneth James Harris, October 19th, 2017 Facts of the case: In the case there were two parties, one party including the defendant, Kenneth James Harris, and the State of Oregon. The dispute is based on the state of Oregon issuing a subpoena for the witness to come to trial for the case of the defendant, however, the witness failed to do so and was unavailable. The defendant argued that the only way the witness is unavailable is if the state did everything in their power to try to get the witness to court. The only thing the state did was provide the victims recording of the 9-1-1 call from the incident. Issue: Could the State of Oregon done more to produce the witness at trial? Holding: "The trial court then concluded that the state had made reasonable efforts to produce the witness and admitted the hearsay. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "more …show more content…
It is the defendants constitutional right in the state of Oregon, to have the victim at trial face to face with the defendant. The Oregon law says: "Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution provides a criminal defendant the right "to meet the witnesses face to face." That right of confrontation is not absolute, though. If the state shows that a witness is "unavailable," it may offer reliable hearsay evidence without presenting a live witness at trial. The issue in this case is what is required to establish the witness is unavailable" (Oregon v. Harris 2017). The unavailable process refers to when the state has done everything in their power to try to get the witness to come to trail. Things such as the state offering a ride to trial for the victim is one way of many trying to get a victim to come into court. The state has to do everything in the power and put their full exhausted effort in the process before they can qualify a victim as
Case Name: U.S. ex rel. Cannon v. Smith Case Citation: 388 F. Supp. 1201 (W.D.N.Y. 1975) Procedural History: State prisoner filed pro se application for writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from imprisonment for rape. The U.S. District Court for the Western Division of New York denied his request and he appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit remanded.
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.
Mr. Williams was arrested for abducting a ten-year-old girl in Des Moines, Iowa. Prior to the kidnapping, Williams had recently escaped from a mental hospital. Williams called a Des Moines lawyer and informed him that he’d like to turn himself in. The lawyer advised Williams that he would represent him as soon as he got back to Des Moines, however, while he was in Davenport he would call a lawyer he knew to represent him for the time being. He then advised Williams to turn himself in to the Davenport police.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
In reviewing the Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551 (2005), we review the allegation of the violation of the Eighth Amendment in the trial court’s use of cruel and unusual punishment in its sentencing of Christopher Simmons; who was a juvenile at the time of the crime; to a sentence of death. In reviewing the facts of the case, we find that Christopher Simmons, then 17 and a junior in high school, along with Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned the commission of a burglary with the intent to commit murder under the perception that they were minors and as such would be able to get away with the crimes. Upon his capture, Simmons, admitted to the crimes and provided law enforcement with the details of the crimes. Because of his age and the nature of the crime, Simmons was considered to be
the first officer to respond to the carjacking scene gathered items that contained the suspects blood, among the items were the victims pants and shoes. When its was determined the pants were checked out a never returned it was then Elisa knew something was wrong. When looking at the evidence report it was determined that the suspect of the carjacking case had blood type B. After further investigation Elisa determined is was no way possible Thompson committed the carjacking he had type O blood. The evidence was presented to Patrick Quinland the presiding judge over both of Thompson’s cases. At the hearing it was determined that the prosecutors involved (Harry Connick sr.
Kirk L. Odom, a convicted Washington D.C. man who served 22 years in prison, for a crime that Odom did not commit. Back in 1981, Kirk L. Odom was found guilty by a Supreme Court Judge, for the rape and robbery of a woman, in her apartment, in Washington D.C.. According to the Washington Post, since 2009 he is one of 5 of rape or murder convicts, that have been vacated based on erroneous forensics and testimony by elite FBI hair experts. Also, The Washington Post gives statistics and years, for rape and murder convictions, and who goes about trying to solve them. When the evidence proves the convicted guilty, like Kirk, the inmate should be exonerated and compensated for his time.
The Harris case is related to the course material because it illustrates the formal criminal justice process related to the court. Harris is being charged with a felony, which is why the case did not end in a plea bargain. The article also illustrates an instance in which discretion within law enforcement may be used. Hill points out that when investigating the murder the team failed to investigate other likely suspects.
John Rea Government Mr. Burke Period 1 The case at hand is Miranda v. Arizona. In this case, the Phoenix police department arrested a man named Ernesto Miranda based on circumstantial evidence that connected him to the kidnap and rape of an 18-year-old girl 10 days earlier, on March 13, 1963. The police questioned him for two hours until he confessed to the crime. He signed a confession saying, "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me."
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
Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.
However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,
In the following days, the defendant was arrested after it was established that he was a participant. The defendant was not in the drugstore when the crime took place and, did not shoot the shopkeeper. The evidence I present will prove to
Case Brief Case Information The United States Supreme Court decided Missouri v. Galin E. Frye on March 21, 2012. Case Facts In August of 2007, defendant Galin E. Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license; he had already been convicted three times for the same offense and Missouri charged him with a class D felony, which carries a maximum prison term of four years.
Lawrence v. Texas: 539 U.S. 558 Facts of the case: In a private residence community, the Houston police had gotten a call about a weapons disturbance in the apartment of John Lawrence. John Lawrence was having drinks with two other people, who were Robert Eubanks and Tyron Garner, a few hours before the weapons disturbance was reported. Robert Eubanks, jealous of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner flirting with one another, decided to get a soda at a vending machine and called the police saying “a black male going crazy with a gun” was in the apartment (The New Yorker). The Houston police arrived at 11 pm to the unlocked apartment and entered to find John Lawrence and Tyron Garner having consensual intercourse.