A judgment of acquittal should be granted against the United State’s case. The government contends that Ken Stringfellow has committed perjury pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623(a). However, Mr. Stringfellow repudiated his previous inaccurate declarations during the grand jury proceedings. Therefore, as a result, under § 1623(d), the government is barred from prosecuting Mr. Stringfellow for his prior statements before his recantation. Moreover, the government was successful in its indictment against the defendant’s father Mr. Weed Townsend for illegal possession of child pornography. Mr. Townsend is awaiting extradition from Switzerland to answer for the allegations charged against him. For the reason above, Mr. Stringfellow
respectfully urges the court to enter a judgment of acquittal in this case.
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
...t his the evidence in front of a jury. Still believing in his innocence Jeff is filing for parole after fourteen years of eligibility. He is hoping to meet parole board criteria so he can be released on parole.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
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.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
``In criminal law, confession evidence is a prosecutor’s most potent weapon’’ (Kassin, 1997)—“the ‘queen of proofs’ in the law” (Brooks, 2000). Regardless of when in the legal process they occur, statements of confession often provide the most incriminating form of evidence and have been shown to significantly increase the rate of conviction. Legal scholars even argue that a defendant’s confession may be the sole piece of evidence considered during a trial and often guides jurors’ perception of the case (McCormick, 1972). The admission of a false confession can be the deciding point between a suspect’s freedom and their death sentence. To this end, research and analysis of the false confessions-filled Norfolk Four case reveals the drastic and controversial measures that the prosecuting team will take to provoke a confession, be it true or false.
Herman H. “Local consultant readers opinion on Sandusky jury.” Reading Eagle (PA) June 21, 2012: Available from: Newspaper Source, Ipswich, MA, Accessed April 24, 2014
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
Pornography Under The Federal Sentencing Guidelines In The United States. Law & Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 27-52.
With the help from F. Lee Bailey, who spent five years appealing the verdict; all the way to the Supreme Court, released Sheppard from prison granting retrial for inherently prejudicial publicity (Rompalske 20). Although Sheppard was found not guilty in 1966, his life had been des...
In 1959, two young African American boys, James Hanover (9) and David “Fuzzy” Simpson (7) were charged with molestation of a young white girl. The case is known as “The Kissing Case”, a case that has been much forgotten and to some even unheard. While there were many issues within the case, the main factor that changed the young boys’ lives forever was the simple fact that they were innocent. Some of the problems in this case are issues that are judicial system still seem unfit to get right in many cases.
“Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” clearly demonstrated the role of a prosecutor in the courtroom. Albeit in a negative manner, Hunter effectively bridged the functions of the police to the criminal justice process during the trial of Metcalfe (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014, p. 150). The murder trial of Metcalfe provided a frightening view of prosecutorial misconduct and unethical behavior of a prosecutor. Hunter betrayed the public he served by conspiring with Lieutenant Merchant to fabricate DNA evidence to ensure victory in the courtroom.
United States. Department of Justice. "MEMORANDUM TO GENERAL COUNSELS." Washington, D.C: Office of Legal Counsel. 28 June 1995. <http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/ap-b.html>
Radelet, Michael L., Hugo A. Bedau, and Constance E. Putnam. "In Spite of Innocence: Erroneous Convictions in Capital Cases." Google Books. UPNE, 26 May 1994. Web. 02 Dec. 2011. .
Late last night, around midnight the highwayman reportedly told landlords daughter (Bess) “I’m going to steal some gold from the king, I’ll be back later.” Then he rode off on his horse and thought the only one that heard him was Bess, but there was also another listener.