An Agreement Between Two Or More Persons Case Study

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

The newly discovered evidence can't merely be “cumulative”, nor “such as would merely impeach the credibility of an adverse witness”. Cizler v. Cizler, 19 A.D.2d 819, 243 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1st Dept., 1963).

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) Case Summary

Prior to the 1820’s, the people of the United States had been struggling to find a way to solve their sectional tensions brought on by slavery in the south. The south had always had an economy based on agriculture that could not strive without their uses of slavery. They did not plan on ending slavery anytime soon, especially since it was really all they had to support themselves. They were against establishing an industrial based economy like the north had began to do in the 1820-1830’s. The real cause of the sectional tensions between the North and the South during the 1820’s-1860’s was not slavery itself, but how it affected each society so differently, and it was very challenging to find a compromise to suit

Analysis: The facts of the case are circumstantial yet lay out a pattern of wrongdoing by the defendant. Specifically that Begelman willfully used non-public information to his financial advantage. The following timeline is indeed suspicious but no “smoking gun” or direct evidence of wrongdoing.

Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083.

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

In the summer of 2005 I had the opportunity to intern at The Franklin Institute Museum in PA. This museum is one of the many well known science museums across the country. The Franklin Institute Museum is a unique museum that gives the experience of exploring science in a fun and fascinating way. The museum touches bases on many areas of science such as, anatomy, physics, environmental sciences, and space. The Franklin Institute is named after Benjamin Franklin and is the home of his national memorial statue. It was founded in 1824 and its first building was established in 1825; since then its location has changed with in the city of Philadelphia but it still remains to be one

Further defining what is required for a complaint to be sufficient, Sutton establishes that, “detailed fact-pleading is no longer required. A pleading complies with the rule if it gives sufficient notice of the events or transactions which produced the claim to enable the adverse party to understand the nature of it and the basis for it.” Id. at 104. The court provided the rational for only requiring such notice by indicating how the “opportunity for discovery and the other pretrial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense and to define more narrowly the disputed facts and issues.” Id. at 102.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the undersigned, Elise Smith, Esquire, did prepare Defendants, Lewis E. Olson and Albert Dobiash's Interrogatories to answer.

3. For a crime to be committed, the prosecutor must be able to prove a criminal intent and an overt act to carry out that intent. Jack and Mary agreed to rob a series of banks. Prior to beginning their bank robbery spree, they were arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. What act did Jack and Mary do that justifies a finding that they committed the crime? Explain.

Circumstantial evidence is where a witness did not actually see what happened but has evidence that the defendant did it. For example a finger print from a burglary, no one saw the burglary happen but it is evidence that a person committed a crime. The finger print could have been from a neighbor but that does not necessarily mean they committed the crime they could have been house watching or it could have been a maid and their finger prints just happens to be in the house. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin presented his defense as to why his client Mr. Butler is innocent and one reason he gave was because the witness brought to the stand Angel Decent did not provide substantial information. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin stated when Angel Decent was asked where did Mr. Butler shoot Carl Talent the witness responded by the car. The second witness Charisse Young also said Mr. Butler shot and killed Carl Talent by a car but the prosecutor William Satchell said originally the shooting happened by a fence. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin then pointed out that Angel Decent got immunity instead of 5 years because he agreed to keep silent about what he saw. Angel Decent left the crime scene and later

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.

The law of conspiracy is considerably more complex and uncertain than it need be because the statutory reform of the area largely contained in Part I of the criminal law Act 1977 was only partial. As a result, there are now two types of conspiracy – statutory conspiracies governed by the 1977 Act, and an important but limited range of common law conspiracies, which were expressly retained by the act, still governed by the old common law rules, (Tomlins & King, 1992). The most recent of the conspiracies is the conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to corrupt public morals and the conspiracy to outrage public decency; statutory conspiracy entails any agreement to commit a crime

In English , it has the agreement markers just in the present tense with the use of the third person singular -s.