Balestra Test: A Summary

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

Regardless of the personal view of the client, the fact remains that as a probation officer certain responsibilities are expected for the offender. However, as a probation officer, if a drug test reveals the client is using marijuana, which is a violation, they would be given one warning only. As a condition of granting probation or parole, they will be informed of the conditions of probation or parole in writing and a drug test would be given every week. Furthermore, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has violated the conditions of probation sentencing a second time, the courts will be informed and the offender remanded. In the event, the offender tries to avoid reporting for or consent to weekly drug testing, other

Darren DelPapa is a sixteen year old male who is currently on courtesy probation supervision in Portsmouth, for charges that occurred in Chesapeake. Charges before the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations court were possession of drug paraphernalia, amended from possession of a controlled substance and a curfew citation. The charges were taken under advisement for a period of one year, and Darren was allowed to enroll in the Commonwealth Challenge program in Virginia Beach. He was ordered onto probation, at any time he was not in the Commonwealth Challenge program. Program requirements of the Commonwealth Challenge program do not allow individuals to be on probation as a condition of entry, hence the order of the court. Darren

Two police officers entered the bus, and work Bostick with a bright green “raid” jacket and displaying their badges and a gun. At this point, the bus was currently stopped at a brief layover in Fort Lauderdale, the officers were “working the bus” looking for persons who might be carrying drugs. Officers quickly asked for his identification and if they could search his belongings. Bostick gave the officers their consent, even though he knew he was carrying a pound of cocaine. Bostick was arrested and he was charged and convicted of trafficking cocaine (Alexander 2016). However, the problem with this case is that police had no reasonable suspicious to search Bostock’s belongings. They also failed to mention, that he was free to remain silent or to refuse to answer any of the their questions. These case supports her thesis by, officers stereotyping the African American man as a drug war criminal. They had no reason to suggest, that he had drugs and formally chose to search his belongings based on the color of his skin. Also, no reasonable person in that situation could have felt as if they had the right to say no to their items being searched or remaining silent, since Bostick was approached with guns and badges he felt intimidated and fearful to follow officers orders. Later on the U.S. Supreme court reversed the outcome of the case, on the grounds that the

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Dependent Variable. The effectiveness and the impact of the drug court will be assessed by analyzing the recidivism rates between the treatment group and the comparison group of probationers. Recidivism will be measured by examining both felony and misdemeanor charges and arrests, and drug related arrests will further be examined. Outcome data pertaining to arrests will be collected from the months of June, July, and August of 2016, allowing for an average follow-up time of 517 days. The data to be collected will include official rearrest results upon the completion of the drug treatment program and upon the completion of a probation sentence for the comparison group. Through the arrest results, further examination will be conducted on the severity of the crimes committed and whether they involved drug offenses.

COMES NOW the Defendant, Josue Emmanuel Rivera Lemus, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney, and pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 6A1.2 the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (“U.S.S.G.” or the “Guidelines”), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 2005), and this Court’s Policy Regarding Procedure to be followed in Sentencing, represents that he has reviewed the Probation Office’s Presentence Investigation Report and submits the Defendant’s Position with Respect to Sentencing to aid the Court in determining an appropriate sentence.

On 3-22-2018, Cupp reported for rules. He was one day late for the appointment. The rules of probation were explained to him. By virtue of his signature, he stated he understood and agreed to follow the rules of probation. During his rules appointment, he was given a drug test which showed he was positive

Mr. Brie was convicted of the manufacturing and distribution of a controlled substance analogue in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act of 1986 (Analogue Act), federal statutes, 21 U.S.C. §§ 802(32), 812, 813, 841(a), & 841(b)(1)(C) (2012), which is an offense that has a scienter element the Government has the burden of proving. McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015). The scienter element is developed through the following relevant provisions. A controlled substance analogue is defined as a substance which: 1) the chemical structure is substantially similar to schedule I and II substances, 2) has effects similar to (or greater than) those of substances that are schedule I or II, or 3) is

The minor has a prior probation history in the form of ward probation on two separate occasions. It is believed that probation at both times did not affect the minor’s delinquent and violent attitude. The minor has experimented with both drugs and alcohol in the past however this officer does not feel that drugs and alcohol have a detrimental

Yet even though this program offers humanitarian reasons to deviate from the sentencing guidelines the data shows an average only 55 individuals were released on medical probation in the United States in any given year. Consequently, for those who are seeking this type of probation. There are still many restrictions that apply, and would disqualify individuals’ form this program. Those are crimes such as first and second-degree murder, first-degree manslaughter, all sex offences, and individuals who have prior attempts to escape.

There are some conditions that are imposed because of the offense that the probationer was found guilty of, for instance, refrain from engaging in a specific occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances; refrain from frequenting specified kinds of places or from associating unnecessarily with specified persons.

In Walder v United States, Walder has stated that he had never “purchased, sold, or sent” drugs and that the government or police never entered his home to seize drugs. However, during cross examination of a defense witness, it was discovered that Walder had been indicted for the purchase of narcotics. However, Walders pre

If Teresa were to fail a drug test, she would return to imprisonment. Parole is the option with the most upside, while also maintain a low risk. Probation is similar but provides too much of a risk in this scenario. If Teresa was guilty of abusing drugs and not selling them probation may have been a better

The following Diluted Albumin (BSA) Standards have been prepared using Bovine Serum Albumin (BSA) Standard Solution (2.0mg/ml) and the Diluent Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) having