Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Miranda and the Fifth Amendment
Miranda and the Fifth Amendment
Miranda and the Fifth Amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Miranda and the Fifth Amendment
The case of George Sanders as sad as it turned out to be, the justice system that processed him each did they job it was supposed to do. The effectiveness of the justice system and how they work together determines the path of any case each have a role in putting the pieces of the puzzle together. In the Sanders case, the role of the Maricopa County Sherriff office being the first to be at the scene after the 911 call from Mr. Sanders in my opinion was done quite effectively, his Miranda Rights were read and his fourth amendment rights where followed. Giving to all the evidence at the scene, his confession, murder weapon and body, he was booked on 1st degree murder charges then further interrogated at the station, were he plea bargained …show more content…
for a lesser count of manslaughter. The Maricopa Sherriff investigators continued to gather all the evidence to handle over to the prosecutor for formal charges. The “gate keepers” (NCJRS) make the decision to initiate the offender’s path through the legal system. Mr.
Sander’s manslaughter plea carries a prison term up to 12 years. Prosecutor Blaine Gadow, his job is to protect the murder victim and prosecute the defendant, but after all the evidence presented and the plea for mercy from all the family members, to include the testimony of George Sanders himself, the prosecutor decided not to send sanders to prison instead recommending probation. The defense attorney did a wonderful job letting sanders tell his story in the stand. He stated, “I don’t know were our society is going to go with cases like this, judge” “At this point in time, what Mr. Sanders did was a crime.” However, “No one in this courtroom has forgotten the victim in this case” (Huffingtonpost, 2013) His story of a life with his best friend and wife of 62 years that ended in tragedy. Prosecutor Blaine Gadow being complimented for being “courageous” in recommending probation and allowing Sanders to walk out of the courtroom (Huffingtonpost, 2013). I do believe that his job was one of the hardest; giving the entirety of the circumstances in this case, his sentence can send mix signals to the community and criminals. Judge Ditworth, job was to make sure law is followed and the proper sentence was given to Mr. Sanders. Judge Ditsworth sentenced him to two years of unsupervised probation. His decision was based on “tempers justice with mercy” “It is very clear that he will never forget that his actions ended the life of his wife” Ditworth said …show more content…
(Huffingtonpost, 2013). In my opinion the Restorative Justice Perspective approach was used in this case, instead of punishing the offender, Mr.
Sander’s justice was focused on the needs of the victims as well as the community. The testimony from the victim’s family; in this case the adult grand-children played a vital role in this case, followed by the offender’s testimony. Making things as right as possible for all parties involved. In this case, the Defense Attorney refrained from any inadequate information. Her duty was to present the facts and non-bias judgments as part of this case. The Maricopa Sheriffs department played an important and critical role, they exercised discretion when arresting and investigating Mr. Sanders. The Maricopa Sherriff’s department had an ethical responsibility and made non-biased, non-discriminatory calls and protect citizens. The Prosecutor’s ethical dilemma was the decisions how to prosecute Mr. Sanders after hearing family members testified in his defense. Judge Dilworth’s ethics played an important part, his interpretation of the law without having personal feelings or agendas to interfere with his responsibility. Investigators, Defense Attorneys, Prosecutors and Judges each have the power to make a decision, enforce the law, protect the constitution and serve the public (Introduction to Criminal
Justice). This case was complicated, and the law states that murder is considered a crime. The fact is that he shot his wife in the head and a crime was committed. Mercy killing is questionable in this case; shooting her in the head did not end her pain, when she ends up in the hospital for five days before she died. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering form an incurable, especially a painful, disease or condition (Dictionary.com). Two years unsupervised probation is not justice, a crime was committed and he should have served some time in jail, in my opinion. Works Cited Dictionary.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from Dictionary.com: http://dctionary.reference.com/browse/euthanasia Huffingtonpost. (2013, 03 30). (B. Skoloff, Editor) Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com Introduction to Criminal Justice. In E. Board (Ed.). Word of Wisdom. NCJRS. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185194
A summary of the case details (provide the circumstances surrounding the case, who, what, when, how)
City of Pinellas Park v. Brown was a case brought to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District by the plaintiff Brown. In this case, the Brown family sued the City of Pinellas Sheriff Department on the grounds of negligence that resulted in the tragic death of two Brown sisters during a police pursuit of a fleeing traffic violator Mr. Deady. The facts in this case are straight forward, and I shall brief them as logical as possible.
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...
Justice Kelly had stated that “failure to call the ambulance immediately after she was unconscious was neglect ”. Ashlee Polkinghorne, plead guilty to manslaughter and her co-accused plead guilty to manslaughter by criminal neglect . The original sentence put forward to the couple reduced from a total of nine years imprisonment by their guilty plea. Justice Kelly revealed Benjamin McPartland’s sentence of seven years imprisonment with non-parole period of 4 years and two months . Ashlee Polkinghorne received eight years with a non-parole of 4 years and 9 months, due to her late plea on the second day of her trial . Although the couple were charged with negligence it was taken as a course of conduct not an isolated plea
On the morning of the 17th of May 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two vehicle motor accident. She had just dropped her son off at his new job, when she ignored a give way sign at an intersection. When the ambulance arrived the officers, Nucifora and Blake, recall Walker being “able to converse” and “orientated”. Blake conducted multiple assessments and did her vital signs twice. The results deemed Walker to be within normal ranges, with the only noticeable trauma involving superficial skin injuries on the left hand, an abrasion over the right clavicle which was assumed to be a seatbelt injury. Ms Walker denied she was ever in pain. Nucifora mentioned on several occasions that it would be best to take Walker to the hospital to be further
In the article titled ”Man Denied Parole in a Flagstaff Hotel” the article follows the case of then teenager Jacob Wideman murdering his bunkmate Eric Kane while he slept in his bed at a summer camp hotel in Flagstaff, Arizona in 1986. Jacob was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years, the article was written in 2011the year of his first parole hearing. The issue for the readers to decipher in the article is if they believe Jacob who has served the past 25 years in prison should be granted parole and be released from prison. The article gives up to date insight from the parents of both of boys, Jacob who committed the murder, and Eric the victim all leading up to Jacob’s parole hearing. In this paper I will highlight key points from the article while answering key questions to give a better understanding of the trial for myself and for the readers.
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.
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
Another powerful opinion yearning to be exposed, is the one held by Henry Drummond, the defense’s attorney. The lawyer undoubtedly came to d...
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 1992, Houston police officers found two homicide victims in a house at an unspecified time. The investigation of this homicide led them to defendant, Genovevo Salinas, where the police asked and the defendant agreed to accompany the police officers to the station where the defendant was questioned for about one hour. Police collected shotgun shells from the murder scene, which is the home of the two brothers that have been shot and killed. The defendant, without being detained and read his Miranda rights, voluntarily answered most of the police officer’s questions about the murder stated earlier. This interview lasted about one hour and both the officer and the defendant agreed it was a consensual encounter. He became very quite once the officer’s asked if under ballistics testing the casing, found at the crime scene, would match the shotgun the defendant owned. After this question the officer asked other questions and the defendant did answer the rest of the questions asked. Police also found a witness who said Salinas admitted to killing the victims. In 1993, Salinas was charged with the murders, but could not be located. 15 years later, Salinas was finally captured. The first trial ended in a mistrial. During the second trial the prosecutors used the silence the defendant had at this time, even over the objection of the defendant, as evidence of guilt in Texas state court. He was convicted, in both State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals.
Most defense attorneys rely on lack of knowledge, financial gain, and illegal police activity to defend their case. A lack of knowledge consists of the defendant not knowing that the victim is illegal. Therefore there is reasonable doubt, in which ca...
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
It was midnight when it all happened. Tom Peterson was sleeping in bed next to his wife after a tiring day at work, while his two little daughters slept in the next room. Suddenly he was violently awakened by the terrified screams of his wife only to get a glance of a huge man standing over him with a butcher's knife. Tom was stabbed thirteen times, one of his daughters was killed and his wife was severely injured. Now, the Peterson family has just exited the supreme court of justice in which the judge has condemned the murderer of their little girl to the death penalty, for as it turns out the Peterson family had not been the first victim of this murderer.
She explained that his involvement in the crime was not excessive and that it was his brother who was the leader. She went on to describe his eight previous arrests for crimes like robbery and cocaine possession. Given his long history she said she was not surprised to see him involved in this kind of case. Because of his other charges I thought the prosecutor was going to suggest the higher end of the sentencing guidelines. However, as she continued I realized I was incorrect. Instead of focusing on his previous crimes she talked about how he needed rehabilitation. She emphasized recovery from his current lifestyle more than sending him to prison again. She brought up his involvement in his church and his successful marriage and questioned why he would throw all of that away. She also suggested that he turn to his church and his wife for support and to aid him in his battle with addiction. Throughout the case, the prosecutor was compassionate and seemed more like a disappointed parent to the defendant rather than angry. The one time the prosecutor did act somewhat harsh was towards the middle of her statement. She brought up the fact that the defendant had previous medical conditions such as a stab and shot wounds. She suggested that the defense had asked for these injuries to be taken into account when the sentence was decided on. She was adamant that the court should not take