Facts of the Case
On or about the 1st day of October in the year 2002, Jay Cashman, a bank teller, was robbed a sum of monies with the use of a firearm: a handgun, contrary to the Criminal Code, at the City of Yourtown in the Region of Yourtown in the afternoon.
In addition, a threat to cause death, contrary to the Criminal Code was also shown to Jay Cashman during the robbery. However, no evidence of this threat was found.
Jay Cashman described the robber to the police as a medium complexion, brown hair, and brown eyes with a very distinctive nose, like someone had broken it before.
The victim, Jay Cashman, was shown a line up of six possible suspects by Officer Marlowe Gumshoe and he had picked Kim Magnum.
An investigation was undertaken into previous police information and records of the accused, Kim Magnum which showed a criminal record of a convenience store robbery several years ago. Kim Magnum also has a past history and still currently has gambling debts, which she was able to pay off shortly the robbery.
On October 31, 2002, the police arrested Kim.
Charges Against the Accused
The accused is charged with the following offence:
Section 343: Robbery: Every one commits robbery who (d) steals from any person while armed with an offensive weapon or imitation thereof.
Position of the Accused:
The accused submits that he/she did not
…show more content…
complete the act of the armed robbery at the Yourtown Bank. In Magnum’s witness testimony, he/she states that she was with her fiance all day until she left for the plumbing store in the afternoon. The plumbing store was in the opposite direction of the bank. Magnum also stated that it would have been impossible for him/her to have committed the crime in the timeframe which he/she left the house. The bank is about a 20 minutes walk from the building so a round trip would be about 40 minutes. However, Magnum had only left the house for 45 minutes, and he/she would not have been able to rob a bank and run away from the police in 5 minutes. Since the accused submits that he/she did not complete the act, the accused would not have had knowledge of the act. The accused submits that he was not compelled to do anything as he did not commit the offence of an armed robbery. Position of the Crown: The crown submits that the accused completed the act of an armed robbery at the Yourtown Bank. The crown believes that the accused had went to the bank instead of the plumbing store in the timeframe that he/she had left the house. The crown had also provided the victim’s testimony where he had clearly identified Magnum as the offender of this crime. During the robbery, the victim, Cashman, states that he was able to study the key physical characteristics of the robber which helped him easily identify the robber in the line up. In addition, Magnum coincidentally had made some extra cash to pay off some of her debts right after the robbery happened. The crown submits that the accused demonstrated knowledge of the act as the victim, Cashman, states that he received a threat on a note which was handed to him during the robbery. According to Officer Gumshoes, another witness of the crime which the crown provided, declared that the accused was fully aware of what he was doing during the crime and when the accused fled the scene. Furthermore, Magnum has a history and still currently owes debts to people which can to an intention for him/her to rob the bank. Legal Issues: Did the accused complete the offence of an armed robbery at the Yourtown Bank? Did the accused know what he/she was doing during the robbery? Was the accused compelled to commit the crime due to her debts? Was there a firearm present at the crime scene area? Decision: On the charge of Section 343(d): armed robbery offence, I find the accused not guilty. Due to lack of physical evidence that Magnum was present at the bank robbery and was the one who committed the crime, Magnum is innocent. First of all, the threat note that Cashman states was handed to him was never retrieved so there is no evidence to prove it happened. Secondly, Officer Gumshoe witnessed the robber throw their firearm over bridge, which was also never retrieved which means there is no verification of Officer Gumshoe’s observation. Although Cashman was able to be a witness and identify Magnum out of six suspects, there was no other evidence that proved him/her present at the crime scene. In addition, I do believe in the fact the Magnum would not have been able to commit the crime in the timeframe she states she left the house. It would have definitely taken longer than 45 minutes for Magnum to travel to the bank, rob the bank, flee from the police, get rid of the firearm and make it back to the building on time. In R.
v. Smith, 2007 BCPC 198 (CanLII), Mr. Smith was charged with armed robbery with a “threatening note” of a bank. However, there was no firearm found which indicated that the accused was unarmed and could not be proven guilty for an armed robbery. Instead, he was charged with robbery with a “threatening note”. Therefore, if there was no physical evidence of the threatening note or firearm connecting Magnum to this case found, Magnum cannot be charged with anything. In conclusion, there is not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kim Magnum did indeed commit the crime of an armed robbery at the Yourtown
Bank.
In “Kim Possible”, Saul Elbein reports on the story of a women giving a false confession and detectives failing at not seeing past their own idea of what happened, and looking at the details. The podcast was published on October 11, 2013 on This American Life. In the podcast we are introduced with the murder of a man along the river. His personal belongings were stolen including his credit cards which led them to surveillance of a woman using a ATM which looked like a woman named Kim. A man named Jim Trainum who is the lead detective on the case was the one to start the interrogation, and she denied everything she was being accused of. Eventually during the afternoon of that day she admits to only finding the credit cards and signing the credit card receipts.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
Wolson never denied that Kim shot her husband, however, he did not agree with the first-degree murder conviction. He believed Kim acted in self-defense to protect her children as well as her life as she felt they were in danger. John was very abusive towards Kim, he had even sent her too Winnipeg one weekend and he told her “to do it” which meant kill herself by getting into a car accident so that he could receive her life insurance. Wolson also examined both Jennifer and Christopher on the stand and concluded that their fathers abuse was constant. Jennifer told the jury that, „he had grabbed her arm..slapper her face…called her a bitch (Sheehy 92).“ She also stated that her father beat Chris „even worse (sheehy 93) than her. She stated, „He had been hit so hard by his father that he had marks on his body…had been removed by child family services for six weeks.(sheehy 93).“ Wolson argued that these statements clearly demonstrated why Kim shot John, clearly for self-defense purposes. He stated; “ what she did, she did it to defend her children She didn’t care about herself. She did it to protect her children.” (Sheehy113) As you can see, Kim clearly is a selfless mother who did absolutely everything in her power to protect her children and provide them the best life
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
On March 13, nearly 3,200 miles from Anchorage, police in Lufkin, Texas, pounced when they spotted Keyes driving 3 mph above the speed limit. Inside his car was an incriminating stash: Rolls of cash in rubber bands. A piece of a gray T-shirt cut out to make a face mask. A highlighted map with routes through California, Arizona and New Mexico. The stolen debit card. And Samantha Koenig's phone. Monique Doll, the lead Anchorage police investigator in the Koenig case, and her partner, Jeff Bell, rushed to Texas to arrest Keyes. He was arrested at a gas station in Texas and was brought back to Alaska on March 13,
John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are two murderers that are known as the Beltway Sniper. Muhammad and Malvo killings are known to be random, which categorizes their killings as a killing spree. During the duration of their killing spree, they caused major panic throughout the United States. This notorious shootings that terrorized the United States took place in 2002. The shootings ended up taking the lives of 10 individuals and injuring 3 others (Blades, 2005, para.1). The shooting at the time it took place is considered unique because their weapon of choice to carry out their plan was a sniper rifle. What is unique about this case is that investigators and criminal theorist
The crime early on was suspected to be a crime of race and deeply connected with the Ku Klux Klan. An early suspect, Charles T. Sanders, affiliated with the KKK, praised the murders in secret conversations that made their way to the surface. The case was reopened in 2005 and closed in 2006 due to Sanders and two of his brothers passing lie detector tests. More DNA evidence that was tested in 2010, linked Williams’ and his dogs’ hair found on the victims, not entirely excluding him from all of the murders.
First, here are the details of the location, time, and crime scene. The incident occurred at Thunder Bay Cafe, in the city of Thunder Bay, CA. The first notification to the authorities was made around 11:34pm, and with witness reports, the time of the actual shooting falls within 11pm to 11:30pm. Mr. McGrew was the bartender working that night and not much is given about his physical appearance. Mr. Quill appeared to have been around 148 pounds, 5 feet, 71/2 inches in height, and in good physical health before his death. The statements made by Mr. McGrew will be presented along with the other statements provided by witnesses, and of course, Mr. Quill made no formal statement.
As the three witnesses claim what happened, it proves that all evidence points to James King who is guilty of Alguinaldo Nesbit’s murder. The testimony of Bobo Evans shows how James King was the one that pulled the gun from Mr.Nesbit’s hands and pulled the trigger. Lorelle Henry’s testify shows that she was a witness of James arguing with him at the counter before the gun was pulled out. The testimony of Osvaldo Cruz proves that James had one of the men planning the whole robbery from the starts and every one who was a part of it knew that he was going to be there in the store. Evidence shows that James King did not try to hide the trail of known fact of him being there at the robbery because of the number of people that had known that he
Sean McEvoy was discovered in his car in a parking lot at Bear Lake, and the park ranger who discovered him came immediately after he heard the gunshot to find him dead. The investigators came up with the information that Sean had placed the gun inside his mouth and killed himself. Due to the high stress that Sean’s co-workers and therapist had experienced him in due to the current homicide investigation, the case was closed and it was ruled a suicide.
The Web. The Web. 5 June 2015. Flynn, Michael W. “Handgun Laws.” quickanddirtytips.com. 2008.
Campbell observed a male Black who he recognized from prior shoplifting incidents inside of the grocery store. The suspect reportedly gave Campbell a name of “Mike” on a prior shoplifting incident.
Louis, Kemper had confessed of killing her son and setting the house on fire after police officer had told her that she had failed the polygraph test. The judge in this case had let the information and the results of the polygraph come in to court as part of the evidence of the State. Later in the trial, the judge decided to call the case a mistrial as the jurors had heard and gathered too much information of the case that could sway their judgment. The case was also questioned in the matters of a suspect confessing to a crime after falsely having been accused of failing the polygraph test when in fact she had passed the polygraph. The defendant’s lawyer had stipulated to the Supreme Court that the confession had been corrupted by the detective involved in this case. Later on in 2006 the case had been blocked by the Supreme Court (Matthew, F.,
he did not witness the exchange of the firearm, only heard about it from the
that can be connected with this is the mugging and burglary that happens to a