Us Vs Clemons Case Study

A. Re Opening Statements: The Prosecution has the job of proving that the defendant, Jordan Bratton committed murder in the first degree by killing the victim, Preston Balmen. The evidence that they have which supports their case is as follows. The police found that there were tire tracks behind Preston Balmen’s house, which matched the tires on Jordan Bratton’s car: a maroon 1990’s Buick Century. It was determined by a medical examiner that Preston Balmen had been strangled to death with a cord-like object and that a microphone cord found in Jordan Bratton’s car is most likely the weapon that was used to strangle the victim. The examiner also determined by the way the victim was strangled, that the suspected murderer stood at a similar

The court granted Nestles request for transfer of the action to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Reason : The court pointed out that the plaintiff resides in South Carolina, her daughters injuries occurred there and her medical treatment was there and continues to be there therefore making South Carolina the appropriate place for the litigation to proceed. A court should not be required to expend resources on cases that have little relationship to the district

1. When Stan Johnson told Trooper Cummings to come in he gave him permission to enter his home and the opportunity to begin a conversation. I do not believe that the police acted in an improper manner in this case. Stan identified himself, invited the officer into his home, and proceeced to distribute cocaine to the undercover cop. I agree with the court decision to not dismiss the case because they were able to prevent the misuse and intent to sell drugs to other people. 2.

After Clarke struggled to get out of the water, Croaker and Clarke followed lake to the parking area, Lake was driving away. Therefore, Lake was convicted under the statute of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, namely, a carjacking. ISSUE: Whether or not the defendant violates the carjacking statutes? Rule: The carjacking statute requires that the vehicle must be taken "from the person or presence" of the victim/owner.

stevenson argues that if the evidence in walter 's conviction was faulty, it is the state 's duty to search for the truth, but chapman evades stevenson 's arguments. Stevenson finds it difficult to stay calm as he accuses the state of trying to intimidate people to suppress evidence, since there is no proof to support a perjury charge against

Case Identification: DONNA BUSHONG and GARY BUSHONG, (Parents of JONATHAN BUSHONG)Appellants-Plaintiffs vs. DAVID WILLIAMSON Appellee-Defendant. No. 54A01-0103-CV-100 Facts: David Williamson was a P.E. teacher for the South Montgomery School Corporation (School) in New Market, Indiana. On March 20, 1998, he was involved in an incident with two students in his physical education class. While playing kickball with his fifth grade physical education class, he tagged Jonathan Bushong out.

Miranda v. Arizona: Impacting Criminal Justice Policy The role the United States court system plays in the creation and implementation of criminal justice policy is far reaching and powerful. And when the court deciding an issue is the highest in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, the impact of the decision on the entire criminal justice system can be profound. Such is the case of Miranda v. Arizona, a landmark decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1966 that continues to impact how justice is meted in our country today.

Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a).

Today in the United States of America many individuals have been falsely convicted of charges with the prosecutors performing prosecutorial misconduct. Many individual lives have been ceased due to the long sentencings of being falsely accused of convictions. The chief officials over these cases should have rules and regulations as to how prosecutorial cases are dealt with, set a standards to show the misconduct and to relief the defendant, and to emphasize on ways to prevent future incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. The first step of dealing with prosecutorial misconduct is the fact that “each state bar has a mechanism in place for the discipline of misconduct by attorneys licensed in that state. Separately, federal courts may discipline

According to Findley & Scott (2006), tunnel vision is the product of innate cognitive biases, institutional pressures, and normative features of the criminal justice system. As an outcome, there are high numbers of wrongful convictions highly related to organizations and institutional pressures and demands. For instance in the case of Brenton Butler, On May 7, 2000, in the parking lot of a Ramada Inn in Jacksonville, Florida, 65-year-old Mary Ann Stephens is shot in the head before her husband's eyes. Brenton a 15-year-old boys is arrested for matching the profile of the man who committed the murder. In a simplified line up, the victim’s husband identified Brenton Butler as the killer who fled the crime scene.

I represent the Crown and am seeking a guilty verdict for Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens, who were involved in the brutal murder of defenceless Richard Parker. To prove the verdict of not guilty, the accused are invoking the Defence of Necessity as a means of justification for their thoughtless actions, which is inapplicable to this case. In order for the defendants to be proven not guilty, all three components of the Defence of Necessity must be satisfied. The first component of the Defence of Necessity states, “there must be an urgent situation of clear and imminent peril”.

Earlier that day before the accident, the judge had just lost his wife, made Mark Blackwell surrender his vehicle to his ex-wife as payment for missed child support. The judge and Mark Blackwell have also had a history together due to the fact the judge has sentenced him twice earlier in his life once for a violent act against his girlfriend which he received a light sentence of 30 days in jail and then again when Blackwell killed his girlfriend shortly after he was released from jail and received a twenty-year sentence. The evidence was strong against Joseph Palmer which would include blood of the victim on the front end of the Mr. Palmers’ 71 Cadillac DeVille, the conversation the two had during an encounter at a local convenience store w, and the security camera showing the changing of his path home to follow the victim (Mark Blackwell). Although there is sufficient evidence against the accused there are also issues with the story of the night when the victim was hit while riding his bike home.

1 page of how you know something is credible or not when talking about evidence in the courtroom In the courtroom a lie can send someone to their death. With this in mind it is very important that a jury member can identify whether a witness, or piece of evidence is credible. Many instances of bad evidence or false witnesses have been recorded in the history of law, so we must make an effort so that no more people get charged for crimes they did not commit. It may come to surprise many people that a witness testimony might not always be accurate. There are are many reasons for this as witnesses may “change”their memory when they are revealed new information about the crime.

It therefore would be considered unfair to disregard Linda’s description of Amy’s state in favour of Garda David Mullins’s and the doctors’ as they did not see her prior to these shots, which was the lesser state of intoxication in which Linda found her before getting into the car with her. This again contrasts greatly with the case of the plaintiff in Hussey v. Twomey wherein the defendant is not known to have consumed any additional alcohol after the accident occurred. Gardaí arrived at the scene at 12.20am with the accident occurring only ten minutes after they had left the premises. Garda Ruttle then tracked the car to its registered address and knocked until the second defendant answered. In his description of the second defendant Garda Ruttle stated: “His eyes were

CHAPTER IV Admissible evidence in civil proceedings Any evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant. The rules on evidence contained primarily within Parts 32 and 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 give the court power to control the evidence brought before it. For example, the court may decide, prior to trial, that a particular issue between the parties is no longer important and can therefore make an order excluding any evidence that the parties intended to use in relation to that particular issue.