Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial discrimination within the justice system
Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system
Racial discrimination within the justice system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Racial discrimination within the justice system
Blackburn was candid that most of his clients were “in the (drug) life at some level” and many of them had prior arrests. For instance, Billy Wafer, was on probation for possession of marijuana at the time when he was accused of selling cocaine to Coleman. “I ain’t an angel but I’ve never sold drugs,” said Wafer. Wafer, unlike most of the other defendants, had his charges dropped because he had a rock solid alibi with time cards from his job. Also, his supervisor testified verifying he was at work when Coleman claimed he sold him cocaine.
Coleman never presented any physical evidence in any of his cases, such as drug money, recorded conversations, finger prints, surveillance videos, etc. He relied simply upon his testimony, which was shaky at best as he contracted himself several times over the course of various trials. By all apparent indications, Coleman took shortcuts by being fast and loose with the facts. Again, financial incentives seemingly manufactured this scandal and
…show more content…
Coleman had never worked undercover before moving to Tulia. In fact, he had been fired from his previous law enforcement position. His previous supervisor warned Swisher County (Tulia) officials that he may have mental illnesses and was unfit for police work. Also, Coleman left town after establishing nearly $7,000 in debts from various local merchants. As a result, he was arrested for abuse of power and theft, a separate charge for stealing gas. Those charges took place while he was undercover in Tulia, but he wasn’t suspended from the investigation. Nonetheless, the public defenders didn’t present this information to the juries. In the end, Coleman was convicted of perjury and fired from a subsequent position at a different police department after having sex with his criminal informant, a drug-addicted
On 04/17/18, Mr. Dougherty came to Parole Office. The subject was given a drug screen and tested positive for Cocaine. The subject admitted to using Cocaine
Most of these defendants couldn’t afford private attorneys and depended upon public defenders. For instance, Joe Moore had two prior convictions and was facing a maximum of a 90 year sentence for selling three grams of cocaine. However, Moore begged his public defender to call Eliga Kelly to stand in his defense. Moore claimed that Kelly witnessed him shoe Coleman off of his property. For whatever reasons, his public defender never bothered to call Kelly to the stand or even question him privately. After all, Eliga Kelly was considered a star witness for the prosecution, but, as a result of that negligence, Moore was sentenced to 90 years. Unlike most criminal informants, Eliga Kelly refused to lie under oath and in a subsequent trial for a different defendant, the prosecutor called Kelly to the stand. Kelly contradicted Coleman’s testimony by naming several defendants, including Joe Moore, who refused to sell drugs to
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
... exchange for his testimony (Source). This case exemplifies that false accusations of informants can have a significant effect on someone’s life, and it can lead someone innocent to be committed for a crime that they never committed.
“I agree with Ms. Krejci that the entire file should have been disclosed with the publics record request, but that does not make it discoverable.” Feeney said. “I understand her frustration that she wasn 't given the same information that another defense attorney was. When I discovered what had happened, which was in august, I immediately requested the entire file from the Phoenix Police Department so that I could disclose it to the defense council. I didn’t do that because I believed that the information was discoverable or relevant. I did it as a professional courtesy. So that we were on the same field, and so that she felt that she had everything tha...
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.
John Riley lied during his deposition and while on the stand. Many of the other employees for both companies lied initially until they were questioned more intensely. This shows how often people can commit crimes during a criminal trial. They happen all the time, yet most of them are not followed through with legal action, solely due to the fact that when the crime is exposed, the “victim” gets what they wanted all along: the truth. They use the crime against them and destroy their credibility, but they rarely actually arrest the criminal. By uncovering the truth, they no longer care about the fact that the witness committed a crime. Crime is almost guaranteed to flourish during criminal trials. The difference between crimes during and crimes before trials, is how they are used, and what their consequences
Miller v. Alabama was a case that was taken to trial on March 19, 2012. The case was resolved on June 24, 2012. The case involved Evan Miller and violating the eighth amendment with respect to life sentences. The eighth amendment states that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The main impact this case had on criminal law was the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to give a life-without-parole sentence on someone who was a minor at the time of the crime committed. Miller v. Alabama was a case where the eighth amendment was violated due to unusual punishment placed upon a fourteen year old boy and a impact
On Thursday, March 2, 2017, at 2:55 p.m., the investigator traveled to the following cities in the Riverside County area; Palm Springs, Cathedral City and to the Desert Hot Springs to conduct cold-calls with the witnesses who may have information about the Ronnie Curtis case. Each of the following witnesses, Ms. Mayla Padzik, Ms. Annette Reiz and Ms. Barbara have not returned any previous phone calls made to their listed phone numbers to secure their statements about claimant Ms. Curtis’s. In an attempt to locate and establish their identities to include their personal statements a thorough check was conducted through HUB’s services which additional addresses were discovered to follow-up with each one of the witnesses with this developed information.
Mr. Johnathan Blake was a guest at Jessie Smiths home at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015. While inside the residents were watching the Super bowl when police officers responded to a disturbance call, during the disturbance call police officers allegedly observed Mr. Blake smoking marijuana through a large window in the living room and passing unknown substance to someone. Mr. Smith the owner of the home allowed the police to enter the premises upon which the officers informed them that they had witnessed the smoking of marijuana and distribution of a white substance and allegedly discovered firearms under the couch. Police conducted pat-down search of Mr. Blake finding large amount of suspected marijuana, suspected cocaine, and money ($400). Mr. Blake was then charged with possession of a controlled substance, distribution of a controlled substance, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
I think his confession should have been used as evidence against him - at the time, the police probably assumed he was actively choosing to confess.
Barry Winston made a remarkable statement during his appointment with the young man in paragraph 3 on page 111, which states “of course I believe him, but I’m worried about finding a judge who’ll believe him”. However, in my opinion, I wouldn’t have thought him to be vindicated. Moreover, all evidence proved that he was indeed guilty even if he doesn’t remember the incident, the young man had 3 beers
However, police whistleblower is unfortunately all too rare. In the rare cases when other cops do muster the strength to and integrity to report gross misconduct of another officer, the whistleblower is often times ostracized, intimidated, threats made to the security of their jobs, and threats to their lives. For instance, Mr. Barron Bowling was awarded $830,000 due to the life long brain damage from a beating he received from a Drug Enforcement Administration agent Timothy McCue in Kansas City, KS. Timothy McCue claimed that Mr. Bowling resisted arrest. Fortunately a police detective names Max Seifert had the strength to report the wrong doings of the DEA agent. In doing so, he said reported that Timothy McCue threatened to kill Mr. Bowling, called him White Trash, and called him a system dodging inbred hillbilly. Members of the department destroyed photos of the physical damage done to Mr Bowling. Officer Seifert took the statement of witnesses and re-documented the physical and presented it to officials. For being a whistleblower, officer Seifert was forced into early retirement, lost a sizeable part of his pension, and retirement health insurance. In addition, his name and service was slandered and
A stakeholder’s morals and issues rotate around the connections that they have with their Shareholders. In this case study the stakeholder Wal-Mart Inc. had been demonstrating discriminatory actions toward certain shareholders such as their female employees. (Ferrell, Fraedrich & Ferrell, 2013). For instance, take the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case. This case included a group of women that sued their company on the basis of discrimination. The discrimination consisted of the way they treated women when it came to their pay, promotions, and disabilities. Led by plaintiff Betty Dukes, they alleged gender discrimination in standard policies that had affected everybody. Initially, the district court decided to certify a class action suit as the