Mr. Logan, I strongly agree with your findings. The Brady Doctrine plays an important role in the criminal justice system as a whole. It allows innocent people not to be convicted due to the negligence of prosecutors or law enforcement agencies. The Brady Doctrine requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence that is in the possession of the government to the defendant. This verifies the credibility of law enforcement agencies' testimony when used as a witness.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
Hicks is like the search of Justin Meyers home conducted by police in the fictional case in the text book. In both searches police were in the defendant’s homes and were searching for specific items, and during that search items were found that implicated the defendants in other crimes. There are several differences between the two cases. First, the severity of the crimes. Hicks’s case involved the theft of stereo equipment, while Myers case involved murder. Second, the search of Hicks home did not include a search warrant, and in Meyers case the police did have a search warrant. In Myers case, police had a lawful search warrant to search for drugs and drug paraphernalia. During that search police located a bloody rag, which was sent for testing. The results of this test revealed the blood belonged to a murder victim, implicating Myers for suspicion of murder. Although the police did have a search warrant, the warrant only listed drugs, and paraphernalia. This arises several questions. First where was the bloody rag found? Second, did the police have probable cause that Meyers was under suspicion of murder? Or was it simply a case of reasonable suspicion? In my opinion the results of the tests performed on the bloody rag found in Meyers case should not be admissible since Myers was not under suspicion of murder, and the bloody rag was not included in the lawful search warrant. The search is not considered legal, and not covered under the plain site doctrine. Myer’s fourth amendment protection against illegal search and seizure was violated by testing the bloody
The Carroll doctrine started in the case Carroll v the United States. The Carroll doctrine is a doctrine that has a warrantless search of a readily automobile. This doctrine is also considered as “the automatic mobile exception” (Ferdico, Fradella, & Totten, 2013). There are two
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
In 1968, Herbert Packer was a Stanford University law professor who constructed two models of criminal process, due process and crime control. The due process model was Packer’s view that criminal defendants should be presumed innocent, courts must protect suspects’ rights, and there must be come limits placed on police powers. The crime control model is a model that emphasizes law and order and argues that every effort must be made to suppress crime, and to try, convict, and incarcerate offenders. Packer’s crime control model suggested that most cases ended in guilty please or withdrawals. In contrast, his due process model suggested that cases that go to trail and are appealed were the most influential. The due process and crime control model differentiate in
It is only there to make our lawmaking bodies and those of us who are too naive to see the truth feel better. Do you really think that the Brady Law keeps handguns out of the hands of criminals?
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
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.
	Brady loved the public. He knew that, even before the time of radio and television, if he controlled the media, he controlled the masses. Thus, his first move every time was to choose the side which the public sided with, knowing that people listened to what they wanted to hear, which would be him, so he would essentially become the media. And thus, he would create a flock of loyal followers. And with the public behind him, a case was usually
The criminal justice system is composed of three parts – Police, Courts and Corrections – and all three work together to protect an individual’s rights and the rights of society to live without fear of being a victim of crime. According to merriam-webster.com, crime is defined as “an act that is forbidden or omission of a duty that is commanded by public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law.” When all the three parts work together, it makes the criminal justice system function like a well tuned machine.
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.
Value and ethical theories abound in “Crimes and Misdemeanors”. From Ben the Rabbi, to Lester, to Aunt May, the various theories presented in this film let us take a closer look at each of the characters and their beliefs. Judah Rosenthal, one of these characters, has a distinct ethical and value theory that can clearly been seen all throughout the film.
Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.
Principles of Criminal Liability "Law, with all its weaknesses, is all that stands between civilization and barbarism" (John Derbyshire) Criminal Liability is what unlocks the logical structure of the Criminal Law. Each element of a crime that the prosecutor needs to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) is a principle of criminal liability. There are some crimes that only involve a subset of all the principles of liability, and these are called "crimes of criminal conduct". Burglary, for example, is such a crime because all you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is an actus reusconcurring with a mens rea. On the other hand, there are crimes that involve all the principles of liability, and these are called "true crimes".
...narily favor the defendant and the burden of proof carried by the prosecution is heavy, but not absolute. The reverse persuasive burden requires the defendant to prove his innocence. It strongly shifts the balance in favor of law enforcement. It can be expected to bring more convictions, but also more convictions that are possibly erroneous. To be compatible with the presumption of innocence, this readjustment must be justified.