“Your Honor I will commence my case today by stating the facts that will ascertain Schapelle Corby’s guilt. I have five compelling reasons why Schapelle Corby should be convicted.”
“First. Shapelle’s prime witness, John ford. All evidence created by the witness was hearsay, unfounded information. He did not witness any of the facts behind his allegations. Just said what he had heard from other people. There was no actual proof that the drugs were planted in Shapelle Corby’s bag.”
“Second. The marijuana that was found with Shapelle Corby was shaped in the same position as the body board in the bag. The defendants’ case rests on the notion that the drugs were planted in her bag by somebody else. But! For this to have happened it would have been done very quickly because the defendant had said that she had the bag with her at all times. If someone had planted the drugs in her bag it would have been rough and rushed, the weight would be uneven and the weight would be noticeable because it would sag to the side it was stuffed into. But since the 4.1 kilo grams of marijuana were practically molded to the shape of the board, it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone else had put them there.”
“Third. The defendant did not use any scientific evidence on the drugs, neither D.N.A or fingerprint evidence on the marijuana or the bag itself. To help avoiding proving her guilt.”
“Fourth. When approaching Bali airport, Shapelle required assistance to carry her bag, once customs/quarantine was reached and an officer asked her to open up her bag the defendant hesitated and refused to open up her bag, proving guilt.”
“I will now break the defendant’s main points on insuring her innocence.”
“Another of the defendant’s main arguments was how could someone that works at a fish n’ chip shop have the money to be able buy 4.1kilo grams of marijuana?
The answer is simple, she may not had to buy the drugs she be repaying a debt to someone or could be transporting the drugs from one place to another, a middle man.”
“Also Shapelle said, that if she were to carry drugs she would lock her bag, not leave it open. This could of straightforwardly been a preparation so that if she did get caught with the drugs she could say that in her defence.”
Standard of proof in Australia, the prosecutor must prove evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
"Gentlemen of the jury, be merciful. For God's sake, be merciful. He is innocent of all charges brought against him.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
In the fact pattern provided, Mark Quickdraw, a detective is conducting an investigation case whose main mission is to capture a drug dealer named Sally Martin. Detective Quickdraw relies on what he heard about the drug dealer. That leads him to believe that she will be selling cocaine in the street she lives in. In connection to his belief, that shows the reasonable suspicion he had towards the drug dealer. Followed by reasonableness, he sends an informant Sneak Pete to her residence with police money in attempt to buy cocaine. The informant comes back and hands over a small bag of cocaine he obtained from a man in the residence. He also informs the detective that he suspects the drug dealer to be having amounts of drug since he observes a white plastic bags and digital scales. Not satisfie...
FACTS OF THE CASE: Police, suspecting that the defendant, Kyllo, was growing substantial amounts of marijuana inside his unit of a triplex residence, scanned the units from outside by means of a device that measured heat signatures. This provided information on the amount of heat originating within the residence. The thermal scan revealed that a portion of Kyllo’s roof and wall had higher temperatures relative to other areas of the building, being
We have a packed courthouse here in Maycomb county today folks, for the Tom Robinson trial. Tom Robinson is on trial for rape charges. He is a black male in his late 20’s. The layer who will be defending Tom is Atticus Finch. Atticus is the court appointed defense layer for Tom Robinson. Judge Taylor gets the case. The jury has been picked of mostly farmers. The prosecutor is Mr. Gilmer. Mayella Ewell, the rape victim, is accusing Tom Robinson and this case has the whole town talking. The courthouse is full of lightness below and darkness above. My view for the trial is up above on the balcony.
California v. Carney involves a Drug Enforcement Agency Agent, Robert Williams, who was observing respondent, Charles Carney, as he approached a youth in downtown San Diego. Having received previous information that that particular motor home was being used to exchange sex for marijuana, Williams accompanied by other agents kept the motor home under surveillance (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, p 260, 2002). During the time that the agent had Carney under surveillance, he saw Carney bring the youth back to his motor home, which was parked in a lot (Kamisar, et al., p 260, 2002).
Syme, D. (1997). Martin Bryant's Sentence- What the judge said, Retrieved 5 July, 2003, from http://www.geniac.net/portarthur/sentence.htm. 7. The Australian Encyclopaedia.
...s claimed " I did not, could not and would not have committed this crime."
The pliers were not found alongside the body or in the area where the bodies were discovered. It is their job to prove the burden of proof by linking the disturbing crime to the defendant. In this case, the prosecution’s defense had succeeded in providing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof was delivered by highlighting the defendant’s motive, which could be used to determine the intent behind the criminal act.
What the issue for the Coats case is concerned with, is how the Colorado courts interpreted their laws; that is, they extended the breadth of their meaning of “laws” in their statutes to include both Federal and State regulations. The courts used the Fair Labor Standards Act, a Federal law that requires all states to abide by Federal regulations concerning fair employment practices, to allow the interpretation of the word “law” to include Federal laws as well as states. Though marijuana has been allowed to some extent by Colorado’s 20th and 64th Amendments; where Federal law is
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
Fonda was able to provide evidence, maybe not hard evidence, but reasonable evidence that things may not have happened the way they were testified in court. For example, the old man who lived below the boy and his father claimed to have heard the fal...