Summary
A man by the name of Challer D. Wadsley was charged with attempted murder, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, domestic abuse, false imprisonment and public intoxication due to the events that took place Monday morning on October second. In which Wadsley and his girlfriend, Courtney Opheim, engaged in an argument while in Opheim’s car that escalated to Wadsley holding a .20-gauge shotgun to her head and firing threats while she was in the process of driving. Which Opheim successfully managed to pull over and have Wadsley execute her car, yet lead to Wadsley firing rounds at her vehicle as she attempted to drive away. This ending in Wadsley’s arrest after the Palo Alto County Sheriff’s Department received several 911 calls of an
…show more content…
armed male and matched Wadsley description to that of the suspect’s and the findings of the shotgun and fired rounds. In which Wadsley was taken to Palo Alto County Jail and awaits his appearance before a magistrate. How it Relates This article greatly relates to the current unit of study of this course.
This is primarily due to the fact that the current unit speaks of attempt, solicitation and conspiracy present in criminal acts and crime, Wadsley being a prime example of attempt. This is so as not only was Wadsley evidently charged with attempted murder, but such can be further demonstrated and validated through the concepts mentioned in our course textbook. One of these concepts being the elements of criminal attempt which the textbook states are “1. An intent or purpose to commit a crime, 2. Act or acts toward the commission of the crime, and 3. A failure to complete the crime” (Lippman 93). Which are greatly visible in the case of Wadsley who contained an intent (anger and tension present with his girlfriend), demonstrated acts to commit the crime (threats mentioned to his girlfriend, possession of the shotgun and holding it to Opheim’s head), and failed to complete such crime (Opheim is alive in present day). Not to mention that this article speaks of the detailed events present in the crime and the soon to come trial which comes to relate to the substantial step test present in our course textbooks. This being so as the judge and jurors will evidently come to analyze the actions of Wadsley and come to determine whether or not Wadsley took a substantial and clear step towards the commission of the murder of Opheim, similar to the analysis and rule seen in our evaluation of the Collier vs. Indiana
case in our course workbook. Reaction I believe this article is a great representation of the course and the concepts we are learning as it encompasses several aspects we have come to familiarize ourselves with and have been introduced to. Among such being voluntary acts, actus reus, mens rea and concurrence which we have learned are essential for committing a crime as well as demonstrating guilt and convicting an individual. These concepts being incredibly present in Wadsley’s case as his decision to attempt to harm Opheim was a conscious choice expressed through bodily movement (voluntary act) and such intent (mens rea) was evidently the cause (concurrence) of his actions towards Opheim (actus reus). This in addition to several other concepts we are currently coming across such as complete attempt, being the decision to take on every act necessary to commit a crime, yet failing to be successful in such, and retribution, being the moral blame associated to a crime regardless of success, that are present in this case leave me to believe that this article is an appropriate representation of the course in all as it emcompasses past and present concepts.
The book Murdering McKinley: The Making of Theodore’s America by Eric Rauchway examines the murder of President William McKinley and the assassin’s motives that impacted America. Rauchway also reveals to us the making of Theodore’s America through a tragic event to show us how Roosevelt gave it meaning through the start of the Progressive Era with his own political agenda. McKinley’s policies came to and end bringing open doors to new policies on social reform. The book is a well-constructed written book that presents to the reader the story of what had occurred chronologically from the beginning of the assassination to the end of the murder’s life. The main issues that are presented in the book include the assassination of the President and
Suzanne Lebsock, the author of “A Murder in Virginia”, has written many historical novels, including “The Free Women of Petersburg: Status and Culture in a Southern Town, 1784-1860”, “Visible Women”, and “A Share of Honour”. Lebsock has been recognized with the MacArthur Fellowship, the Bancroft Prize and Berkshire Conference Prize for “The Free Women of Petersburg”, and the Guggenheim Fellowship. “A Murder in Virginia” captures the essence of the Southern society post-slavery. The strictly fact based novel goes chronologically from soon prior the murder of a white farm wife, Lucy Pollard, to the convicting of suspects, to sentencing those found guilty to be hanged, to the children of Fort Mitchell searching for the lost money. These events span from 1895 to over a century later. The previously
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.
On June 7th 2008, Sarah May Ward was arrested for the murder of Eli Westlake after she ran him over in a motor vehicle in St. Leonards. Prior to the incident the offender had been driving the wrong way down Christine Lane which was a one way street. Whilst this was occurring she was intoxicated, under the influence of marijuana, valium, and ecstasy and was unlicensed to drive. The victim and his brother who were also intoxicated, where walking down the lane and where nearly hit by the offender. This prompted the victim to throw cheese balls at the car and make a few sarcastic remarks regarding her driving ability. After a brief confrontation between the two parties the victim and his brother turned away and proceeded to walk down Lithgow Street. The offender followed the victim into the street and drove into him while he was crossing a driveway.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
On Bloodsworth’s appeal he argued several points. First he argued that there was not sufficient evidence to tie Bloodsworth to the crime. The courts ruled that the ruling stand on the grounds that the witness evidence was enough for reasonable doubt that the c...
On October 20, 2014 a young male teen was fatally shot in Chicago, Illinois. The shooting occurred in the middle of the road and the suspect that was fatally shot was named Laquan McDonald. McDonald was just 17 years old and was the suspect after initial reports placed him in the scene of a possible car jacking. It was reported that Laquan McDonald had a knife and was also seen slashing tires of a police cruiser. When police had finally had him surrounded in the middle of the road, one officer opened fire and released 16 shots into his body. Another deputy on hand said the use of force was not needed because Laquan was not in any way trying to attack the officers present. The officer who fired the 16 shots into Laquan is named Jason D. Van
The Greenland Natives were killed around 1000 A.D and many assumed that Leif Erikson was the murder. However, the time that this occurred Erikson was around the age of 8. How could an 8 year old kill all those natives? The answer is that he didn’t kill them, his father did. Erik the red was Leif’s father and the culprit of the Greenland Native’s deaths. Some people may have associated Leif with his father or just thought Leif did it all. But according to Saga Of Erik The Red, c. 1000 Red did it all.
While reading the case about Mr.Hossack 's murder i saw the wife, Mrs.Hossack, as innocent at first. The children all claimed that the two did not argue for over a year, so why would she kill him now verses a year ago? When the youngest child, Ivan Hossack, came to the stand and "told his story in a straight, unhesitating manner" it made it easier for me to believe in Mrs. Hossack 's innocence. The child even said that he saw his mother aiding his father when he called out for help. If she had been the one to swing the axe, why would she help him and risk getting in trouble? Most importantly, if he was conscious and talking, why wouldn 't he say who to murderer was? He could have easily identified his wife in the dark after being married for over twenty years, and yet he didn 't identify who had tried to kill him. Dr. Dean first stated that the axe did not hit the speech portion of the brain, so he could have been conscious and yelling out for his wife. Dean later stated that the fatal blow from the axe would have left Mr.Hossack unconscious. The murder weapon had blood on in and apparent hairs stuck to one side; "Prof. John L. Tilton of Simpson college... was unable to say definitely that the hair had been
The story in discussion is that of Meagan Grunwald since it was one for which various articles from different online sources were available due to the large controversy it had sparked a while ago. Meagan Grunwald, a teenager of seventeen was convicted in May 2015 on 11 counts, including aggravated murder, attempted murder, aggravated robbery and use of a controlled substance and was sentenced to 30 years to life with the possibility open for parole.(Associated Press, 2015) The girl had engaged in a 51 mile crime spree that left one sheriff 's deputy dead and another wounded with her 27 year old boyfriend Jose Angel Garcia-Jauregui who was killed in a shootout with police in the spree which included a driveway of a speeding car in a three county
David Riley was pulled over on August 22, 2009 for driving with expired tags. Riley’s license was suspended and therefore, the car had to be impounded. Upon impounding the car it was searched, and its contents cataloged. When searching the car, police found two guns and added the charge of carrying a firearm to Riley’s offence. Riley also had his cell phone. The gang unit detective searched his phone and found evidence connecting Riley to gang activity. They also found evidence connecting Riley to a recent shooting of a car that belonged to a member of a different gang. Evidence on his phone, along with ballistic tests, indicated that Riley was involved in the shooting of an occupied vehicle. Riley was charged for shooting the vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
Juror eight opened the minds of the others by telling them how the boy”had been kicked around his whole, life. You know living in a slum. His mother dead since he was nine. That’s not very good head start. He’s a tough, angry kid. You know why kids get that way? Because we knock them over their head once a day, every day. I think maybe we owe him a few words.” juror eight goes on to explain how this boy had a hard life and if he did commit this crime he might have done it with reason. Now a hard life did not constitute the boy to kill his father but it may have given him motive to kill his father. We know that he was charged with first degree murder. Simply because he had bought his pocket knife days before the murder. “But as we the jury have talked about it many people own the kind of pocket knife yesterday. Why yes one of our very own jurors happens to own the same knife.” Juror eight is able to prove to everyone that we should not to so quick to judge. As all the facts were placed on the table it showed how by further looking into and embracing new ideas of what could have happen the opend the case to have a birds eye view. To be able to see more than just a poor boy who killed his fathr for
A famous director from Hollywood has been found dead. The man’s name is William Desmond Taylor. The date of his death occurred on February 2,1922. The murder occurred in Hollywood in the setting of his living room of his own house. He was killed by a .38 caliber which was used to shoot him in the back. After deep investigation and research, I have come to the conclusion of the person who committed this crime. I will be informing you with this information and why I have come to this result of this murder.
Therefore, under these ethical standards, prosecutors cannot file charges if there is not enough evidence to support a conviction, they also do not file if it is not in the public interest to do so. This is what makes the possibilities limitless; however, three key factors also play a part in determining which cases to prosecute. If prosecutors follow these three factors in determining cases then the contradiction of limitless discretion and high ethical standards should be remedied for others. These are factors that should be followed are as followed: the seriousness and nature of the offense, the offender’s culpability, and the likelihood of being able to obtain a conviction at a trial. “Ethical conduct, then, must be the core of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal justice system” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). Therefore, even though prosecutors have almost limitless discretion in their decisions, they still must
This case found the law had taken a wrong turn and hence removed JEL. This meant liability as an accomplice requires intention to aid or encourage, with foresight merely acting as evidence of this intention. This case also established that recklessness, as raised within Carter v. Richardson , is not sufficient for the mens rea of accomplice liability. Knowledge or foresight of the offence committed is required for liability. Had this case occurred prior to Jogee the judgement in 2016, where JEL was still alive, the outcome of Selma’s secondary liability following Pauls rape of Victoria could be determined differently, although arguably would not be ultimately