Unit 3 - Individual Project
(CJUS375-1802B-01)
CRINMIAL PROCEDURES
Janet Dulude
6/4/18
Typical state system The Arrest Process: Once a person is taken into custody, when they are suspected of a crime they will be questioned, they must be told that anything they say may be held against them in a court of law, and that they have the right to remain silent, the suspect will have his Miranda rights read to him. The Miranda Right are Fifth Amendment. to the U.S. Constitution focuses on the rights of the accused, due process of law, and related matters. It is very important in the context of criminal cases, including the right to not incriminate oneself and eminent domain rights. (https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/u-s-constitution-fifth-amendment.html)
…show more content…
The prosecutor may also introduce physical evidence, such as photographs, documents. Both attorneys have the same documents to know what each on is presenting at trial, there will be Cross- Examination on both sides of the parties to ask the witness questions. Closing Statements: The prosecution will make its closing argument, with the evidence as the prosecution sees it and describing why the jury should concentrate why there should be a guilty verdict. Then the defense will have their chance to explain why the defendant should be a "not guilty" verdict—or at least a guilty verdict on only a lesser charge. The prosecution can the last word, to reason with the jury that he as reiable evidence that they should come back with a guilty verdict. Jury: After closing statement the judge will directs the jury on those important legal documents to decided including results the jury will need to make instructions to arrive at a conclusion. The judge also describes important belief such as "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge will explain to the jury to consider the evidence presented at …show more content…
Ayala (Orange-Osceola State Attorney) in the case of Mar Keith Lloyd when she said she would not be seeking the death penalty in his case. And Gove. Scott executed the order to remove her from the case.
The Florida state attorney expected to prosecute the murder trial of Mar Keith Lloyd was removed from the case by Gov. Rick Scott on Thursday afternoon after refusing to seek the death penalty in the case.
(https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/16/us/orlando-shooting-markeith-loyd/index.html) There was a decision made last year (2017) by the U.S. Supreme Court to shut down the Florida’s death penalty statue because it violates the 6th Amendment because it would mean providing the judges and the juries the final verdict enforce capital punishment. The Governor of the State of Florida had a new statue that would demand commonly approve by the jury to impose the death
In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.
Jurors will thoroughly inspect and weigh over the evidence provided, and process any and all possible scenarios through the elements of crime. If the evidence does not support the prosecutor 's argument and the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must pronounce the defendant not guilty. If questionable or irrelevant evidence is included in the criminal proceeding, it is the duty of the prosecutor or defendant 's counsel to object and insist that the evidence be excluded by the presiding
Miranda rights are the entitlements every suspect has. An officer of the law is required to make these rights apparent to the suspect. These are the rights that you hear on every criminal investigation and policing show in the country, “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say may be used against you, you have the right to consult an attorney, if you can no t afford an attorney one will be appointed for you.” After the suspect agrees that he or she understands his/her rights, the arrest and subsequent questioning and investigation may continue. These are liberties that were afforded to suspected criminals in the Miranda Vs Arizona. However, with every rule there also exceptions like: Maryland v. Shatzer, Florida v. Powell, and Berghuis v. Thompkins.
Now that we have discussed the pretrial occurrences, we get into the trial portion of the court process. This is the portion of the process in which both the defense and the prosecution present their cases to the jury, the judge, and the rest of the courtroom. To select a jury, the bring in potential jurors and ask them questions,
After an arrest is made, before they may begin questioning, they must first advise the suspect of their rights, and make sure that the suspect understands them. These rights are known as the Miranda Warnings and include: 1. What is the difference between a. and a. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. 2.
On February 11, 1983 Robert Augustus Harper, Jr., filed Amicus Curiae on the case of Joyce Bernice Hawthorne v. State of Florida, 740 So.2d. 770. This was the third appearance of Hawthorne in the First District Court of Appeal of Florida for First degree murder, second degree murder and now manslaughter.
we must first fully understand what rights citizens welcome Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. What are the "Miranda" rights?
This source explains the rights that should be told to a suspect that is arrested, the fifth and Sixth Amendments. It also explains how Miranda was identified as the criminal and what happened in the interrogation room. This source helped me understand the specific amendments that apply to Miranda Rights.
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
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.
his/her own witness as well as a presentation of defense by his/her attorney in order to conflict
This article gives a thoroughly detailed explanation of both an opening statement and closing argument. In addition, it also demonstrates what the key difference between the two is. It states that during opening statements, both sides (defending and prosecuting) are prevented from stating the evidence of the case. During closing arguments, both sides are free to use and state the evidence. Although all the given information was helpful, I found this source to be the least helpful while writing my closing
Miranda is a ruling which says that the accused have the right to remain silent and prosecutors may not use statements made by them while in police custody, unless the police advice them of their rights. In other words, a police officer must inform a suspect of this fundamental right, under the Fifth Amendment, at the time of their arrest and or interrogation. Miranda protect ignorant suspects from incriminating themselves.
In the court, the prosecutor takes part in plea negotiations, leads discussions on resolutions and presents the case if there is sufficient evidence for a conviction.
It then it became that jurors who voted “not guilty” to convince the others or comply with their guilty verdict. After hours of deliberation the jury was able to successfully come to a unanimous “not guilty” verdict. In this case several different kinds of evidence