More handpicked essays just for you.
Validity of eyewitness accounts in investigations
Importance of eyewitness testimony in the criminal justice system
Miranda rights analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Validity of eyewitness accounts in investigations
nvestigator Tidwell and I went to Searcy PD to interview Scruggs. After making contact with Scruggs an advice and understanding of rights form was completed. Post Miranda Scruggs stated that he was walking down Vinson Rd and saw a black car sitting in the front yard of a house. Scruggs stated he used a pair of pliers to enter the rear door of the house to try and find the keys to the car. Scruggs entered the house and found the keys by the refrigerator along with a purse that contained a debit card. Scruggs stated that he grabbed the items, and then found a small revolver in the kitchen drawer along with bottle of Methadone. Scruggs stated that he also got a flat screen tv. Scruggs stated that he left in the car and took the items to a friend’s
Bermudez told me the purse did not belong to her. I asked Bermudez what was the can she dropped and she said, “I was drinking. The can belongs to me.” I asked Bermudez if there is anything illegal inside of the purse that I needed to know about and she said, “No.” I told Bermudez to sit in the backseat of my vehicle and she complied. I approached and grabbed the salmon colored purse I saw Bermudez drop. Laying on the ground next to the salmon colored purse was 1 24oz Black Berry Steel Reserve Alcoholic beverage (half full). I grabbed both of the items and returned to the hood of my vehicle. I searched the purse and found several large blue trash bags inside. I searched the trash bags and found 1 used methamphetamine pipe. I asked Bermudez if the methamphetamine pipe belonged to her and she said, “No.” I asked Bermudez if she uses any drugs and she said, “No. I found that
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
On June 26, 2006, a Sheriff Officer of the State of Florida, William Wheetley and his drug detection dog, Aldo, were on patrol. Furthermore, Officer Wheetley conducted a traffic stop of the defendant Clayton Harris for expired tags on his truck. As Officer Wheetley approached the truck, he noticed that Harris was acting nervous/anxious, more than he should have, and he also noticed an open can of beer in the cup holder next to him. At that moment, Officer Wheetley knew that he was hiding something, he requested to search
Ms. Dollree Mapp and her daughter lived in Cleveland, Ohio. After receiving information that an individual wanted in connection with a recent bombing was hiding in Mapp's house, the Cleveland police knocked on her door and demanded entrance. Mapp called her attorney and subsequently refused to let the police in when they failed to produce a search warrant. After several hours of surveillance and the arrival of more officers, the police again sought entrance to the house. Although Mapp did not allow them to enter, they gained access by forcibly opening at least one door. Once the police were inside the house, Mapp confronted them and demanded to see their warrant. One of the officers held up a piece of paper claiming it was a search warrant. Mapp grabbed the paper but an officer recovered it and handcuffed Mapp ?because she had been belligerent.? Dragging Mapp upstairs, officers proceeded to search not only her room, but also her daughter?s bedroom, the kitchen, dinette, living room, and basement.
I arrived on scene at 17:10 hours. A juvenile was standing under the carport beside a white Dodge Durango. The reporting party, Kaella D. Barners (F/B, DOB: 05/04/1977), exited the front door when she seen deputies arrive. I approached the juvenile, Katera Edwina Barners (F/B, DOB: 08/29/2000). Katera was calm and cooperative. Katera had been upset at her mother. I observed an end table on the hood of the vehicle. I asked Katera if she put it there. Katera said she threw it there in attempt to damage the vehicle.
Petitioner David Leon Riley was originally stopped for a traffic violation. The registration tags on the car that Riley was driving were currently expired. During the traffic stop the police officer also learned that Riley’s driver license was suspended. Police policy required the police officer to impound the vehicle because Riley’s license was suspended. Continuing to follow police policy a second police officer performed an inventory search of Riley’s car. The search led to Riley’s arrest for possession of two loaded handguns that were found under the hood of the car. The officer also proceeded to seize Riley’s cell phone which was located in his pocket. About two hours after the arrest a gang unit detective analyzed the content on Riley’s cell phone. As a result, Riley was tied to a shooting that had occurred several weeks early. In relation to the shooting Riley was charged with firing at an occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with
When officer Faultless seized the phones of Rahten and Ruhmoan both were secured then secured by officer faultless. Officer faultless unable to unlock the phones noticing Ruhmoan’s phone required his thumb print to open and forcefully used his thumb to unlock his phone. Once unlocked the officer noticed information from a text about a gun being in their car. This lead to the officer searching the car and discovering a gun. The gun was located in the passenger’s driver’s seat well out of the view of both
“I agree with Ms. Krejci that the entire file should have been disclosed with the publics record request, but that does not make it discoverable.” Feeney said. “I understand her frustration that she wasn 't given the same information that another defense attorney was. When I discovered what had happened, which was in august, I immediately requested the entire file from the Phoenix Police Department so that I could disclose it to the defense council. I didn’t do that because I believed that the information was discoverable or relevant. I did it as a professional courtesy. So that we were on the same field, and so that she felt that she had everything tha...
DLK had no way of disposing all of the evidence without being suspicious about his actions because his house was not on hot pursuit, DLK was in his own house and not endangering public safety, he did not allow the agents to scan his home for the signs of heat used to grow marijuana, and he was not arrested in public therefore the agents had no probable cause to search his house without a warrant. In Document A it gives an example of a court case similar to DLK’s case, Carroll v. United States. In this dispute during the Prohibition Era, federal agents believed Carroll was selling alcohol. The agents spotted Carroll driving on a highway and chased him, when they pulled him over they searched his car, found the alcohol and arrested him. Carroll argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights but the Supreme Court ruled the search was lawful because this was considered hot pursuit and Carroll could easily drive away with all of the
In this trial, the defense possessed and emphasized the most important pieces of evidence, which included: the weak password to the Raider’s Facebook Page, Sherman’s inconsistent testimony, Sherman and Dousa’s falling out, Dousa allegedly leaving the party early, fingerprint match, and the time the victim ingested the rohypnol. The strongest piece of evidence of the six is the weak password to the Raider’s Facebook page (which is RAIDERS), demonstrating how the Facebook page could have been hacked. As a result, reasonable doubt is created in terms of Dousa posting the image himself because the high possibility of the account getting hacked means that anyone besides Dousa could have posted this photo on the internet without the plaintiff's consent.
Steve Harmon is guilty of felony murder because he participated and had knowledge about a crime that ended up in the death of an innocent citizen. The judge stated the if you believe that Steve harmon took part in the crime than you must return a verdict of guilty. I believe that Steve went into the drugstore on that day for the purpose of being a lookout. Some of Steve’s journal entry’s lead to him feeling guilty or like a “monster”.
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
March 30, 1981 was a peaceful day. President Ronald Reagan was walking outside enjoying the fresh air when suddenly shots were fired. Six shots were fired in total, but only one shot hit Reagan due to a bullet that ricocheted. Luckily, Reagan was hit in the abdomen; therefore, he survived. The “mastermind” behind the attempted assassination was a man named John Hinckley. Hinckley believed by going through with this assassination it would be a romantic scenario for himself to confess his undying love for the actress Jodie Foster. Before long it was time for the Hinckley trial and after hearing his side of the story, the jury came to the conclusion that he was crazy. Hinckley was later found not guilty by reason of insanity and admitted to
The issue is whether there was a 4th Amendment and 6th Amendment violation in the search of the car and the subsequent confession.
All of these dealers claimed they were innocent, but one particular defense attorney, Cynthia Barbare, took her client, Jose Luis Vega, at his word. He claimed to be an honest auto mechanic and the dirt under his fingernails led her to believe him. Plus, she found it odd that a reportedly wealthy drug trafficker lived in such a meager home. Her first line of defense was simply requesting that the drug lab test the veracity of the drugs. None of the prior dealers from Alonso’s cases had done so because the Dallas county court system unofficially penalized anyone who requested verification from the drug lab with a much lengthier sentence. The courts had simply relied upon the officers’ field tests. Ultimately, Barbare’s gutsy choice paid off