The Harris Case: Formal Criminal Justice Process

Discussion The court will most likely find that Nick Spears is guilty of driving while intoxicated under Texas penal code. In Texas, a defendant can be convicted of driving while intoxicated if the defendant is (1) intoxicated while (2) operating (3) a motor vehicle and in a (4) public place Tex. Code Ann. §49.04 (Vernon 2011). Although there are some exceptions in the definition of each element of this rule, Spears does not fall under any of those exceptions.

Case Analysis. Prosecutor’s Case Against James Earl Ray: The prosecutors have enough efficient evidence in establishing guilt against James Earl Ray concerning the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. First, James Earl Ray was in close enough vicinity of the Lorraine Hotel to successfully fire a clear shot to kill Dr. King from only a block away. The location of Bessie Brewer’s boarding house was in the perfect position of being only a block away, in making the kill shot that killed Dr. King. Second, The high-power rifle with a scope mounted on it was in a bundle with a couple beer cans, the receipt, as well as the binoculars, all had fingerprints that belonged to Ray on them.

Although current law does not distinctly define TBIs according to mens rea or diminished capacity, a possible defense that may appropriately be applied to criminal cases is the law as it relates to mitigating circumstances in sentencing. The Florida case of Cooper v. State (1999) is just one of very few cases in the country that seemingly acknowledges the fact that recurrent or traumatic head injuries may be a mitigating factor to criminal behavior. The defendant, Albert Cooper, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary with a firearm after him and his partner, Tivan Johnson, killed the owner of a local pawnshop, Charles Barker, after robbing the location on May 25, 1991. The court ultimately found Mr. Cooper guilty as charged, which made him eligible to receive

Firstly, this case set precedent that when a criminal proceeding is initiated against an accused

April Smolkowicz Professor Hicks Criminal Procedure 3700 June 14, 2015 Law and Disorder Assignment #2 A story about the New Orleans Police Department, (NOPD) after Hurricane Katrina, and their unethical use of lethal force against citizens. An investigative look into the NOPD cover-up, conflicting information, questionable police reports and activities, knowingly altering, concealing and conspiring. At one point the city was covered in water, no electricity, no radio for back-up, no way of communication unprepared for the storm that hit, they lost command and complete control of the police department. Suspicious deaths, premeditated homicide?

Background The petitioner, Robert Leroy McCoy was arrested in May 2008 in Bossier Parish, Louisiana for three counts of first degree murder. There was an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to McCoy committing the crime, but throughout the trial, McCoy maintained that he was innocent and gave multiple alibis. However, a person matching McCoy’s description was seen in a Kia fleeing the scene after the murder, and there were bullets matching the gun used in the crime were found in said car. Also, before the crime, one of the victims, Christine Colston Young, was heard in a 911 call just before the murder saying, “She {McCoy’s estranged wife, Yolanda Colston} ain’t here, Robert… I don’t know where she is. The detectives have her.

Throughout the history of the United States there have been numerous court cases that have drawn an incredible amount of public attention. Whether this was because the person involved was a known figure, or the offense that's being charged upon the defendant and/or the conviction that the case resulted in. It seems as if the United States just has an abundant of cases to choose from when choosing to analyze a case and that can possibly be based on the justice system used in the states to proceed a crime in court. One of those controversial cases in the history of the United States was the Lizzy Borden case. This case showed how to escape from the hands of the justice system.

MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,

The Scopes Trial John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, who found himself at the center of one of the 20th century’s most famous life-changing court hearings; The Scopes Trial. It was also known as the Monkey Trial, where biology teacher John Scopes was prosecuted for teaching evolution in a public school located in Tennessee (Kemper). Prior to the trial, there was a anti-evolution law that was passed making Scopes actions illegal, this was known as The Butler Act. As a matter of fact, when Scopes went against this law it was the first step in moving towards modernism. As well as, causing America to move away from traditional values.

In previous occasions, the state of Texas has been known for being different with regard to gun control and stand your grounds. In this occasion, however, it has to do with the judges. Texas is one of many states that give the residents the ability to choose who will be the judges, unlike most states where the governor has final say (Horwitz, 2014). In other words, the decision of the judge all depends on the people of the lone star state. The political point of view has an influence as well.

The reason O.J. was found not guilty of murder and acquitted in criminal court, but found guilty of the tort of harm and ordered to pay damages in the civil court lies in the structure of our legal system, in regards to criminal cases and civil cases. The distinct difference between criminal cases and civil cases provides further explanation regarding the O.J. Simpson case. Criminal cases deal with crimes against society. It is the government, not the victim, who brings action against the charged individual. In criminal cases, the penalties can include a number things including jail time.

In the case of Tomcik vs. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Janet Tomcik, the plaintiff, blamed the loss of her right breast on the fact that there was a major delay in her examination and treatment of her tumor. This could be known as nonfeasance negligence, which is the “failure to act when there is a duty to act,” (Pozgar, 2016). The corrections department, or in this case, the defendant, claimed that Tomcik`s cancer was already so developed, that her breast would have been removed regardless of when her official checkup and treatment took place. One stakeholder in this case is Janet Tomcik. She is the patient who not only lost her breast, but endured “physical pain, [and] emotional suffering,” (Tomcik, 1991).

Finally, in the fifth count of her complaint, Ellina states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). “[T]o impose liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress: (1) The conduct must be intentional or reckless; (2) The conduct must be extreme and outrageous; (3) There must be a causal connection between the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress; (4) The emotional distress must be severe.” Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. 560, 566 (1977). Critically, the intent requirement of the tort requires the tortfeasor to have acted intentionally or recklessly. Indeed, in her complaint, Ellina alleges that Gil “intentionally and/or recklessly engaged in conduct . . .”

Abstract The purpose of this research paper is to choose which of these models of justice: retributive, utilitarian, restorative or parallel, is appropriate for the Jonathan Nathaniel Ramsey case. We need justice to be delivered efficiently, effectively in order to make sure the offenders are held accountable and the victims receive assistance. Each crime that is committed needs to be addressed properly. When the crimes are not then that leads to the unrest in the community and to the victims.

Assignment #1 Review questions Chap. 1 p. 26: 1. A single standard of ethics cannot be applied to all criminal justice agencies. The world is too complex to legislate morality and ethics. The cultures that make up each part of the world are not the same.