In the case of Ganganon Vs Scarpelli, the Supreme Court held that parolees have a limited right to counsel in revocation hearings. And that the hearing body must determine whether counsel should be afforded, case by case. (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Even though it may not be granted in all cases it counsel should be provided at the parolee's request after they have been informed of their rights and based on a timely claim that he had not committed the crime. If the crime is of a public record and uncontested, and there are reasons in justification or mitigation that makes revocation inappropriate.
Even though illegally seized evidence can't be used in criminal court. (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Some states permit such evidence in parole revocation cases where the standard is probable cause.
…show more content…
(Ganganon vs Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). After his sentence was suspended he was placed on probation and signed a wavier saying that he could remain in Illinois. However, while on probation he was arrested during the course of a burglary he and an accomplice committed. After being arrested Scarpelli admitted to his crime, but later detested his admission stating that he gave it under duress. Because of this his probation was revoked and he was sentenced without a hearing. Scarpelli appealed this court decision after 2 years filing a habeas corpus on the bases that his due process rights had been violated because he did not have counsel during the revocation
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
The book raises the importance of, and questions, the writ of habeas corpus. Carter used a writ of habeas corpus to get a federal trial. Many question the legality of Carter going into federal jurisdiction, when his case should have been heard before the Supreme Court of New Jersey. It was a gamble, but the federal judge gave fair justice to Carter and Artis. The State of New Jersey appealed the case all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the District Court’s ruling.
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
United States, the Court concluded that in order to protect the citizen’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, illegally seized evidence must be excluded in federal trials” (Gardner & Anderson, 2016, p. 215). The key phrase in this statement is “federal trials” because this indicates that the state courts did not have to adopt the exclusionary rule, and could still admit illegally seized evidence in their state-level court systems if they so pleased it. Unfortunately for Mapp’s, the state of Ohio did not adopt the exclusionary rule until later, which leads to me her arguments. Mapp’s argued that any evidence that is obtained illegally should be inadmissible in court. She further argued that the exclusionary rule or the Fourth Amendment rights should apply to all criminal prosecutions, including state
Tanglewood was founded in 1975 by a pair of best friends. Today they have expanded well beyond their dreams and own 243 store fronts while offering online business as well. With expansion in brick and mortar and online business, Tanglewood needs to stay on top of their operations and strategic decisions for staffing levels to maintain quality and keeping their customer service top notch. Their current deficiencies within the company such as a weak Human Resource department and staffing environments being pretty much individually driven, Tanglewood must make some slight adjustments strategically to keep operational changes to a minimum, unless needed versus changing them each time a department or employee voices a suggestion. (pg 6-7, Tanglewood
A search and seizure is the phrase that describes law enforcement's gathering of evidence of a crime. Under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, any search of a person or his premises this also includes vehicles. Any seizure of tangible evidence, must be reasonable. Normally, law enforcement must obtain a search warrant from a judge, specifying where and whom they may search, and what they may seize, though in emergency circumstances, they may dispense with the warrant requirement.
R. v. Lavallee was a case held in 1990 that sent waves through the legal community. The defendant, Lyn Lavallee was in a relationship with her partner, Kevin Rust, in which he would abuse her both mentally and physically. On the night of the incident, Lyn and her husband got into a fight, her husband pulled out a gun and told her if she didn’t kill him now he’d be coming for her later. When leaving the room, Lyn shot Kevin in the back of the head killing him instantly. She was convicted of murder, but when brought before the Manitoba Court, she was acquitted of the charges. An appeal was made to the Manitoba court of Appeal on the grounds that expert testimony should not be admitted as evidence in the courts. They argued that the jury was perfectly
The majority opinion, written by Justice Clark, states that all evidence obtained in an illegal search cannot be used as evidence in a state criminal trial.
From a trial strategy point of view, you always start with the piece(s) of evidence you believe are most damaging to the client's case and work backwards looking for an exploitable flaw in the search and seizure procedure that would make that or those item(s) inadmissible. The further back in the series of events you can argue a fatal flaw, the more likely that the evidence and any additional materials which flowed from that particular item of evidence will be excluded. This is the practical analysis of all the times we see or hear of law enforcement arguing that there was some technical item which drew their attention and suspicion and justifies their hunch that criminal activity is afoot.
Parole is a controversial issue because its vase ways to debate the challenges and problems that will exist. It’s like a side effect to medication based on one’s effectiveness belief. In like manner, the public media allows others who aren’t immediately effected to become tertiary, and secondary victims. It is the door to open opinions. An inmate is released from a sentence given parole and then assigned a parole and probation officer. The one thing that will make probation and parole successful is the supervision of the program and rehabilitation or residential treatment center. This will support the goal to maximize the good behavior and minimize the harmful behaviors of individuals. Probation is a good program because it’s a form of rehabilitation that gives inmates elevate space to obey rules and regulations. On the contrary, probation is risky just like any new diet plan that people use to
In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).
...he person prosecuted. It is possible for a person to be acquitted for criminal actions in a court of law only to face new charges by the parole board. Normally, criminal activities require the prosecution to prove beyond doubt for there to be considered a conviction. In this case therefore, if the prosecution fails to proof beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is acquitted, then he or she may find himself or herself facing a parole board. This is so because the parole violations only require less proof for criminal actions.
Mr. Curtis alleges his constitutional right to effective assistance counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution was abridged. See generally, U.S. Const. Amend. VI; Tenn. Const. Art. I, § 9. The denial of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is also a denial of the defendant’s right to be heard by counsel under the Tennessee Constitution. Baxter v. Rose, 523 S.W.2d 930, 936 (Tenn. 1975); see also Tenn. Const. art. I, § 9. The Supreme Court of the United States has, for some time, maintained that “the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984) (citing McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, n. 14 (1970)). When the accused is not accorded effective assistance of counsel, his conviction cannot stand. Goosby v. State, 917 S.W.2d 700, 707 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (citing Harris v. State, 875 S.W.2d 662, 665 (Tenn.
Historically, the right to counsel was only guaranteed in federal criminal court (Wice, 2005). A person charged with a crime in the state court did not have the right to legal representation. Law scholar Professor Mason Beaney explained this by saying, “only a few states guaranteed the right to appointed counsel…In most jurisdictions counsel was appointed in none but the most serious cases, often only when the crime was punishable by death” (Wice, 2005, p. 3). Many defendants, who were poor, illiterate, and uneducated had to face the justice system without legal assistance (Smith, 2004, p. 579). Los Angeles County started one of the first public defender programs in 1914, spreading slowly to other counties (Neubauer & Fradella, 2011, p. 176). By the 1960’s, less than a dozen states still refused to provide attorneys to defendants unable to afford one (Smith, 2004).
If you’re not a Criminal Minds, Law & Order, or CSI fan, the word contraband might remind you of a cheesy Mark Wahlberg movie. But depending on the way the word is used it can have many meanings. Using contraband as a form of evidence according to California Criminal Evidence Guide can be described as, “items that are illegal to possess, prohibited by statute” (Hill 59). Also, contraband is a word frequently used in correctional facilities, “any item that inmates are not allowed to possess, including items that can be used to escape, are dangerous, can undermine prison physical security or are nuisance items” (Seiter 395). We will look at contraband being an issue nationwide in correctional facilities, punishments of bring contraband into prison,