In the review of the case file State v. McAlister the client Jose McAlister is advised to accept the guilty plea offer from the prosecution. The state is charging Jose McAlister with murder in the 2nd degree, with up to life imprisonment; possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, with up to thirty years of incarceration; possession of child pornography, with up to two years incarceration; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, with a mandatory consecutive sentence of five years’ incarceration. The prosecution conducted a plea offer to pleading guilty to possession of cocaine, with a sentence of eight years’ concurrent incarceration; possession of child pornography, with five years’ concurrent incarceration; …show more content…
McAlister had evidence proving guilty, due to law enforcement conducting scientific evidence methods to prove the evidence gathered from the car and the apartment are related to Jose. Police used the keys to open and search the car where they discovered unlawful items. Thus they discovered $1,000 in $20 bills, a box of Ziploc baggie and a half-kilo of crack cocaine powder in the love box. Additionally, police detected the file on the laptop had data on drug trafficking. The money, baggies, laptop, and cocaine will be evidence for McAlister to be charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute with up to 30 thirty years of incarceration. In contrast law enforcement also discovered an artsy picture of a underage seductively posing naked girl under the bottom cushion of the driver’s seat that holds a small paper reading “Happy Birthday, Mick” in Spanish. As a result the child pornography that was discovered gives Jose McAlister up to two years incarceration for possession. Additionally, Law enforcement discovered a map with a circle over a portion of Interstate 74, a firearm, and a knife with reside on the blade under the passenger’s seat. The map leads law enforcement to the naked body of Venzie Viktum who was wrapped in plastic in a ditch with overgrown weeds four feet high. Pathologist revealed the blood on the knife discovered in Jose’s car and the latent prints on Venzie Viktum were from Jose McAlister. In …show more content…
McAlister case valid rules of evidence and testimony were used to prove Jose McAlister is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, circumstantial evidence demonstrated a factual matter by proving other events from which the occurrence of the matter can be reasonably inferred. The evidence of the map found in McAlister’s car proved there was a relationship between McAlister and the murder of the victim Venzie Viktum. Furthermore, the evidence received by law enforcement was relevant, reliable, and competent. The evidence was gathered by a probable cause and was not prejudicial, misleading, inaccurate or distracting. The court case had many valid testimony’s that prove Jose is guilty of the charges against him. The prosecutions’ witness Willy will testify at the preliminary hearing and admitted he was in a drug distribution conspiracy with Jose. Additionaly the prosecutions discovery would be available and applicable to be called by the intern at the government laboratory that conducted the certificate of analysis analyzing the evidence found and the body. The prosecution has plans to call Jose’s former attorney that knows everything about Jose’s illegal activities. Futheremore the prosecution will also call Nancy Nozzy who is the neighborhood watch caption that information. The expert testimony from the government laboratory has specialized knowledge that will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence that Jose was guilty. The testimonies from
All of these dealers claimed they were innocent, but one particular defense attorney, Cynthia Barbare, took her client, Jose Luis Vega, at his word. He claimed to be an honest auto mechanic and the dirt under his fingernails led her to believe him. Plus, she found it odd that a reportedly wealthy drug trafficker lived in such a meager home. Her first line of defense was simply requesting that the drug lab test the veracity of the drugs. None of the prior dealers from Alonso’s cases had done so because the Dallas county court system unofficially penalized anyone who requested verification from the drug lab with a much lengthier sentence. The courts had simply relied upon the officers’ field tests. Ultimately, Barbare’s gutsy choice paid off
The first evidence is the judge and jury ignored the physical evidence that both men weren’t in area when the crime happen, and their guns were not the same caliber there were a .38 while the gun reported was a .32. The police also had fingerprints from the buick the was used in the South Braintree crime. But the fingerprints didn’t match and the police instead questioned them on their religion, political beliefs and associates instead of the crime. The prosecutors used witness but the witness accounts made no sense. Meaning it didn’t match the descriptions of the men and the their stories weren’t the same and had loops hole. One witness said she saw the shooting from 60 feet away and said one of the men which she said was Sacco had big hands but he had small hands. Another said they saw Sacco kill Berardelli (one of the men who was killed in South Braintree), but the defense question and she said she hidden under workbench when the shots fired and didn’t see the men. The third witness said she talked to a man under a car fixing it as Sacco but her companion said she didn’t talk or saw him. Instead it was a pale sick young man. The day of the crime Sacco was getting a passport. A official confirmed Sacco was their getting a passport but the picture he had was too big. Other witnesses said they saw Vanzetti selling fish in Boston and some even bought some. The last piece of evidence is that the prosecutors tried to convicted them using consciousness of guilt. It is when you are guilty of a crime because you are lying about your actions because you are guilty. They lied and said they didn’t know Mike Boda. They did this because they wanted a car to transport their anarchist pamphlets to a safe place. They wanted to do this because the police could arrest anyone with these pamphlets and the people would be
Even though the prosecution presented evidence to the court, the only clear-cut hard fact the prosecution had against Anthony was that she failed to file a report for her missing daughter Caylee and that when she finally did a month after her daughter had gone missing, she proceeded to lie profusely to the authorities on the events that took place. The prosecution focused highly on the forensic evidence of decay located in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car. The use of a cadaver dog to search the vehicle led investigators to be able to determine that a decomposing body had been stored in the trunk of the car. The forensics department used an air sampling procedure on the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, also indicating that human decomposition and traces of chloroform were in-fact present. Multiple witnesses described what they considered to be an overwhelming odor that came from inside the trunk as it where the prosecution believes Caylee’s decomposing body was stowed. Several items of evidence were ruled out to be the source of the odor, as experts were able to rule out the garbage bag and two chlorine containers located in the trunk as the source. The prosecution alleged that Casey Anthony used chloroform to subdue her daughter and then used duct-tape to seal the nose and mouth of Caylee shut, inevitably causing her to suffocate. Based off the
In the fact pattern provided, Mark Quickdraw, a detective is conducting an investigation case whose main mission is to capture a drug dealer named Sally Martin. Detective Quickdraw relies on what he heard about the drug dealer. That leads him to believe that she will be selling cocaine in the street she lives in. In connection to his belief, that shows the reasonable suspicion he had towards the drug dealer. Followed by reasonableness, he sends an informant Sneak Pete to her residence with police money in attempt to buy cocaine. The informant comes back and hands over a small bag of cocaine he obtained from a man in the residence. He also informs the detective that he suspects the drug dealer to be having amounts of drug since he observes a white plastic bags and digital scales. Not satisfie...
Because police investigators are usually under pressure to arrest criminals and safeguard the community, they often make mistakes. Sometimes, detectives become convinced of a suspect 's guilt because of their criminal history or weak speculations. Once they are convinced, they are less likely to consider alternative possibilities. They overlook some important exculpatory evidence, make weak speculations and look only for links that connect a suspect to a crime, especially if the suspect has a previous criminal record. Picking Cotton provides an understanding of some common errors of the police investigation process. During Ronald Cottons interrogation, the detectives did not bother to record the conversation “But I noticed he wasn 't recording the conversation, so I felt that he could be writing anything down”(79) unlike they did for Jennifer. They had already labelled Ronald Cotton as the perpetrator and they told him during the interrogation “Cotton, Jennifer Thompson already identified you. We know it was you”(82). Jenifer Thompson 's testimony along with Ronald Cotton 's past criminal records gave the detectives more reason to believe Ronald committed the crime. Ronald Cotton stated “ This cop Sully, though, he had already decided I was guilty.”(84). Many investigative process have shortcomings and are breached because the officials in charge make
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
I wanted to look at the investigative and criminal procedures following the arrest of an alleged criminal and the powerful effects via testimonies and evidence (or lack thereof) it can have on a case.There is an importance of the courts in regards to crime that can’t be over looked. The primary function of the criminal justice system is to uphold the established laws, which define what we understand as deviant in this society.
13-3623 A2 "Child Abuse" a Class 3 Felony, A.R.S. 13-3408 A1 "Possession, use, administration, acquisition, sale, manufacture or transportation of narcotic drugs" a Class 4 Felony, and A.R.S. 13-3415 A "Possession, manufacture, delivery and advertisement of drug paraphernalia" a Class 6 Felony. While Monica was being arrested by Phoenix Police, Officer Prado watched Fiona McFadden. Officer Prado observed Fiona move a highchair towards a power box on the wall of the apartment near the apartment front door. Fiona then climbed and stood on top of her highchair and opened the lid to the power box and pointed to an extended black folding knife (see attached) with the blade out and stated: "this is daddy's knife." Officer Prado quickly removed the knife out of safety for Fiona as she was in reach of the extended knife. It should be noted that all of the narcotics in the apartment located by Phoenix Police were in reach and accessible to Fiona. It was also observed by Phoenix Police that Fiona had full access to the apartment and was not restricted to any area. This was also observed by this
Plea bargains are highly prevalent in the popular television series Law and Order. If a random episode is chosen, there is a high chance that lawyers in the show have offered a plea bargain. While many people would believe that media skews the public’s understanding of how often plea bargains occur, however, this is actually an appropriate representation. According to Heumann, approximately 10% of criminal cases actually continue on to trial (Heumann, 1975). Similarly, as stated by Menkel-Meadow, plea bargains are the reason why there may be congestion in the courts, but a low number of criminals are actually jailed (Menkel-Meadow, 2005).
One could wonder why plea bargains are even made. One reason would be that criminal courts are becoming clogged and overcrowded. Going through the proper procedure and processes that we are granted takes time. Trials can take anywhere from days to...
D) Three days after his plea Ray hire a new attorney and filed a motion to renounce the plea
Juarez's diagnosis of the rohypnol being ingested around 10 pm proves to be an important piece of evidence in this case because it shows that in comparison to the time that Dousa was present at the party, it would have been difficult for Dousa to play a game of one-on-one basketball with Anderson and leave shortly all while Anderson’s cup was unattended and before he began drinking the spiked beverage. With Dr. Juarez's report, reasonable doubt is also conjured as it demonstrates the difficulty and unlikelihood that Dousa would be able to drug Anderson with the rohypnol and once again, shows the higher likelihood of another partygoer/student drugging Anderson. Consequently, this piece of evidence proves to be extremely important because it evinces and emphasizes how Dousa may not be guilty of drugging Anderson due to the limited time he stayed at the party juxtaposed with the ability to be around Anderson’s unguarded cup to drug him while he played basketball with Anderson. This crucial element therefore ranks as “Yeah, I’ll buy that” because it aids in creating reasonable doubt based on facts to Dousa’s guilt in relation to the case, but the report also suggested that Anderson may have been drugged prior to playing basketball with
After a person suspected of murder has been the trial process begin. During this stage the police will give the evidence they have complied to the prosecution. The prosecution will make a determi...
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
In the criminal trial process charge negotiation provides the offender a choice to plead guilty or not-guilty, which is encouraged by the NSW DPP and is mentioned under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 – Section 99. Charge negotiation usually involves receiving a lesser charge in exchange for a higher charge being withdrawn or could lessen the sentence. In the R v Perry [2011] the offender pleads guilty early in the case; which had effectively showed her remorse, her acceptance of responsibility for the crime and had saved the courts time and the costs that are involved in criminal trial cases; the victim Mr Gibson has been noted to after hearing the evidence and her plea the victim had conveyed to the crown that he had believed Ms Perry’s remorse was true and that he desired for her not to suffer lifelong consequences for the accident. With expenditure on criminal courts’ administration being roughly $570 million in the 2006-2007 year, with increasing numbers of offenders pleading guilty in the first instance the cost for criminal proceedings annually should slowly decrease therefore resulting in money being used in other avenues which would be more beneficial for the community. Having this option provides positive outcomes for all affected; the offender is in most cases rewarded for not wasting the courts time which can alter their sentence or