Case Analysis : Grady Vs Corbin

It is further alleged as to Count II, MURDER, that the defendant acted intentionally, deliberately, and with premeditation. It is further alleged as to Counts I & II, MURDER, the defendant committed more than one murder in the 1st or 2nd degree in this proceeding, and is a special circumstance within the meaning of Penal Code section 190.2

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

The four basic components of the Fifth Amendment include: double jeopardy, due process, the right to be heard by a jury and safeguards against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy is when the individual can only be tried for a crime once. In the event that they are acquitted and new information surfaces, they cannot be retried again for the same crime. Instead, new charges would have to be filed showing the individual violated another area of the law. (Sundahl, 2011)

Procedural History: Prosecutors unhappy with the jury’s decision appealed the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors. The Court than included Palko confession and ordered a new trial, the defendant attorney objected claiming the new trial would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment; of double jeopardy. However,

El Chico Corp., 732 S.W.2d 306. For instance, in Bruce, the court held that the inebriated state of a pair of customers of the defendant’s restaurant may be deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the restaurant based on circumstantial evidence alone even if the defendant had not possessed actual knowledge of the pair’s condition. Bruce v. K.K.B., Inc., 52 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001). The plaintiffs in Bruce suffered serious injuries after his car was struck by an intoxicated driver (a member of the aforementioned pair), who die died in the crash, who was driving home from the defendant’s restaurant. Id. In spite of testimony to the contrary by both the restaurant’s employees and the surviving member of the pair, the court held that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to exhibit that the driver had been “obviously intoxicated to the extent that she presented a clear danger to herself and other” at the time of service. Id. Analogously, in Perseus, the inebriated nature of a patron of the defendant’s bar was deemed to have been sufficiently apparent to the defendant, even if the defendant lacked actual knowledge of the patron’s condition, since the defendant should have had knowledge of the customer’s condition. Perseus, Inc. 995 S.W.2d 202. The defendants in Perseus. were sued after the aforementioned patron hit and killed two people after leaving

In the first incident, Clayton Harris’s truck was pulled over by Officer Wheetley because it had an expired license plate. When Wheetley approached the vehicle the suspect

The Plaintiff, Keller, sued the defendant, DeLong. DeLong was driving Kellers car at Tyngsboro, Massachusetts at approximately 11:40p.m. on April 14, 1963, DeLong collided with a utility pole at the side of the highway. The Trial Court ruled that the sole cause of the accident was the fact that the defendant dozed off to sleep and did not awaken in time to avoid collision with the pole. The driver showed no sign he was going to fall asleep. Defendant, Carl DeLong, suddenly and unexpectedly dozed at the time of the occurrence of the accident. Defendant, DeLong, was not found negligent. Vacated; reversed, affirming trial court’s judgment.

Legal Claim: State of New Hampshire (Superior court) questioned whether certain laws applied to the specific facts of Etzweiler’s case. Ralph Bailey was indicted for manslaughter and Mark Etzweiler was indicted for negligent homicide after the fatal accident involving bailey had occurred.

Before going further, let me explain the charges you will hear. Section 222(5) defines murder as “a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being.” Murder is first degree when it is planned and deliberate, and all murder that is not first-degree murder is second-degree murder. If Dr Kimball was provoked into killing his wife in the heat of passion then he will be guilty of manslaughter. However, the defence believes that he is not guilty. You will clearly hear the evidence to support this.

This means that a ruling to a case should be used again when another similar one is presented. It is clear that the way the police went about getting their evidence was like searching the house and was invading Kyllo’s privacy. An example of this would be the Katz vs. the United States case in 1967. The police put a device that allowed them to listen to his conversations on the outside of a public booth he frequently used. The Supreme court ruled in favor of Katz because “What a person knowingly exposed to the public...is not a subject to the Fourth Amendment. But what he seeks to as private, in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” said by Justice Potter Stewart. The government went too far because the DLK case is similar to this one where it was deemed that they can’t use evidence that was kept private even if it is a “public” setting. The police invaded Kyllo’s privacy in his home, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment and essentially searched his home because they could tell what was going on inside his house. The Supreme court has previously ruled in favor of the petitioner in cases like the DLK case which means the government has gone too far yet

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

The Guidelines provide for a base offense level of 30 for this offense, pursuant to U.S.S.G§§ 2D1.1(a)(5)(c)(4). Taking into account Mr. Rivera Lemus’s acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level is decreased to 27, pursuant to U.S.S.G§§ 3E1.1(a)-(b). Mr. Rivera Lemus’s prior criminal record includes three driving related offenses; driving while impaired and driving on a revoked license; which elevates his Criminal History Category from I to III.

In this case, the second trial would not be considered double jeopardy. Double jeopardy means that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. He was never acquitted of the crime. Since the jury could not reach a verdict, it was a mistrial case. Once a verdict was reached and carried out, Devine could not be trailed again for same crime. In the case that the defendant appeals and obtains reversal of a conviction, they may be tried again. The reversal means that the defendant was not in jeopardy. The reversal is basically a willingness of the defendant to be tried for crime. In another case, If the crime is committed against two or more people or in multiple states or if the crime is in violation of both state and federal laws the defendants protection against double jeopardy does not prevent multiple trials.

The first person to claim not guilty was charged with speeding. I tried to get as many of the details of the case as possible. The facts of the case were as follows: While driving on Bogus Avenue, the defendant was stopped by an Officer and was charged with violating CVC 22350. The charge was driving

Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted. The double jeopardy clause, which is in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, was designed to protect an individual from being subject to trials and possible convictions more then once for an alleged offense. The idea was not to give the State too much over the individual, this way no individual will be subject to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal against being tried for an alleged offense more then once. It also reduces the possibility of someone innocent being found guilty. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment embodies three protections to criminal