Ahmed Edwards Case Summary

During Mr. Coker’s trial on his new charges, his defense argued that their client was temporarily insane at the time the crimes were committed. However, the jury rejected this defense and found Mr. Coker guilty on all charges. At the sentencing hearing, the Judge instructed the jury that

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

2. This criticism is on the moral basis and the consequences. This section suggests that the crime is of more importance, then the moral imperatives. It also addresses the way a criminal, who does plea insanity, should be trialed and punished for the crime. It is suggested, that the criminal should be convicted and the mental illness should be taken in consideration at the time of sentencing. If this method would be used by the court, it would allow the judge to determine the length of imprisonment, within a hospital prison, and the defendant would have to provide prove of improvement to the once dangerous behavior. Retrieved from; West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2 (2008).

A 27year old African American man pled guilty and was convicted on five counts of common law burglary. He was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama state law. The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of the events and the petitioner did not testify. The defendant did not testify on his behalf, nor did counsel present his case. The judge accepted the guilty plea without any confirmation from the defendant concerning his voluntariness of his guilty plea or its consequences.

seeing him. The court then proceeded in convicting him. Coy argued that the Iowa code 910A

“A young African-American man shot and killed an Alabama police officer in 1981. He was examined in jail and found to be psychotic then and at the time of the killing. In 1982 the Alabama Lunacy Commission found him competent to stand trial, and he was sentenced to death. He was consistently described as psychotic in prison records; but another state forensic evaluation in 1988 again found him competent. After reviewing his records and examining him, I concluded that he had been psychotic when he killed the officer and was psychotic still. A federal appeals court judge ruled that the original trial had been unconstitutional because the defendant was not competent at the time. The prosecutor declined to retry him, and he was sent to a state mental hospital.”(Beck)

Anthony Cooper was charged under the laws of Michigan State with assault with intent to murder Mundy using a gun that he fired to Mundy and she was shot on her buttock but luckily she survived the attack. Besides the assault charges, he was also charged with possession of a weapon illegally, been under the influence of marijuana and turning to be a habitual offender. Blaine received an offer from the court to dismiss two of the charges and suggest a lenient sentence of 51-85 months for the two remaining charges, in exchange for a guilty imploration. Cooper on good faith admitted his offence and expressed his willingness to accept the offer. However, the respondent rejected the offer proposed by the court after his attorney managed to convince him that the court will not be able to prove his intention to kill Mundy because the victim was shot in her waist. On the first day of the trial, the prosecution proposed a substantially less attractive deal which made respondent reject the plea deal. After the end of the trail, Cooper was found guilty and was subjected to a compulsory least verdict of 185 to 365 months imprisonment. The petitioner filed an appeal at the Michigan Supreme Court based on the allegations that the advice of his attorney to decline the offer was an ineffective counsel. The canton court temporarily permitted the writ and instructed the first plea bargain presented to Cooper be employed. The court of appeals confirmed and the U.S Supreme Court accorded certiorari to review (Wynne & Klein, 2012).

Does your team feel this defendant is competent to stand trial? Why or why not?

On Sunday September 18th. 2016. at approximately 8:30 PM an off-duty officer fatally shot a would be robber. The incident took place on the corner of Liberty Avenue and Merrick Boulevard. The off duty office was in route to his job for Allied Security dressed in his uniform when he was approached by the attempted robber. The attempted robber demanded that the officer hand over his gun and cash at gunpoint. After which the officer removed his weapon and shot the attempted robber. The injured man was taken to Queens General Hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

The ideological concept of an insanity defense, formerly termed “complete madness,” was originally incorporated into the English common-law jurisprudence system in the late thirteenth century of the United Kingdom as an affirmative defense for defendants under the yoke of criminal charges involving a heinous action which could involve the option of termination of a defendant’s life if adjudge guilty of such act (Hill). Through such incorporation of a legal defense, the institution of a new societal grouping known commonly as the “criminally insane” became expounded, as well as, the legal opportunity allowing for self-declaration of being “innocent by reason of mental illness or defect”(or, the insanity defense). Those criminally insane are a subset of the prison population who have been deemed to have committed their crimes under the influence of a mental disease/disorder, or who were not in a condition of intellect during the time of the crime to comprehend the illegality or immorality of their offense (Frontline). Only if the defendant has plead insanity before the court can they be considered a truly criminally insane inmate. There are manifold condemnations sustained by the judicial system ranging from guilty but insane to not guilty by reason of insanity, as well as the legal states of incompetency and diminished capacity. This distinction has become a substance of federal law, but as soon as a defendant is convicted, the treatment of the convicted individual is left

The case of Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), is very similar in facts and issues to this case. Mr. Edwards was convicted of robbery, burglary, and first degree murder. While being questioned by

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

Tuesday July, 14th the lawyers in the aurora theater shooting of 2012 made the final appeals to the jury. The Prosecutors told jurors on Tuesday that James Holmes was legally sane when he entered the crowded movie theater, armed with a pistol, an assault rifle, and a shotgun with the intent on killing as many people as he could. His defense lawyer Daniel King went on to counter that Holmes was under the control of his schizophrenia. In their closing arguments they spent a lot of time recapping old things and going back and forth. On the prosecutors side they argued that two state appointed forensic psychiatrists had evaluated James and determined that he was legally sane, despite severe mental illness. Then the defense called their own psychiatrists

The record thoroughly, clearly and positively shows that Smith and his attorney have ample time to thoroughly review Smiths’ sentence report prior to sentencing. They did so and had: “no problems with it.” It is shown by the record that Smith never appealed his conviction or sentence. Any objections to the sentence report as submitted were clearly waived by Smith. The defendant have the responsibility to advise the Court of any claimed errors in the sentence report. His failure to voice any objections waive any issue not properly presented. It has been long held by this court that “Section 2255 is not available to test the legality of matters

I immediately noticed that the defendant didn’t have a lawyer, and it shocked me because I don’t usually hear of people successfully defending themselves in court. Before presenting his evidence, he asked the judge a question on how he was supposed to present it, and Judge Green responded by telling him that he had the opportunity to have a lawyer appointed for