Case Analysis : Terrance Phillips ' Charges On Behalf Of His Attorney

The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of mandatory life sentences without parole enforced upon persons aged fourteen and younger found guilty of homicide. The court declared unconstitutional a compulsory sentence of life without parole for children. The states have been barred from routinely imposing sentences based on the crime committed. There is a requirement for individual consideration of the child life circumstance or the defendant status as a child. The court rejected the definite ban on life sentences without parole. This is because in some cases the instances may be uncommon, but jurors

In July of 2008, one of the biggest crime cases devastated the United States nation-wide. The death of Caylee Anthony, a two year old baby, became the most popular topic in a brief amount of time. Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, became the main suspect after the child supposedly was kidnapped and went missing. To this day, the Casey Anthony case shocks me because justice, in my opinion, wasn’t served. I feel as if the criminal conviction system became somewhat corrupted in this case. The entire nation, including the court system, knew that Casey Anthony was behind this criminal act, but yet she escaped all charges. I chose this case not only because it’s debatable, but also to help state the obvious, this case was handled the wrong way.

Comparing these two cases, the legal system did not really work fairly to show justice because if in accordance with the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Gregg will never be sentence to death; this not only unfair to him but also disrespects for the authority of the legal system. Let us finally look at the case of “Callins v. Collins” in 1994, in this case, even though the convict Callins was put to death by lethal injection, there was a justice stood up to struggle on save Callins’ life, and his name was Harry Andrew Blackmun, who had voted in “Gregg v. Georgia” to restore the death penalty. Blackmun claimed that he had no longer supported the death penalty because he did not believe that the capital sentencing procedures were still working, and restoring the death penalty was a big

Whether one particular person happens to be a defendant, a witness, a friend, or even just an acquaintance, murder cases weigh heavily on everyone involved. Huge amounts of evidence must be analyzed, people must be interviewed, research must be done, and a case must be made. Ultimately, all this work comes down to one decision: convict or acquit. The case of Adnan Syed v. State of Maryland is no exception. Syed, at the age of nineteen, was convicted of the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Hae Min Lee. He was sentenced to life in prison, plus thirty years. However, from the day the case ended, people have had doubts about the verdict. Holes in the state’s argument slowly became more apparent. For example, the state placed a massive amount of trust

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

The book, “Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson pleas to fix the current unfair and fragmented system of criminal justice and juvenile justice. The book’s plot focuses majority on Stevenson’s work and his clients. The main narrative tackles the story of Walter McMillan, who was accused of killing a white woman, but despite hard evidence that would prove he’s innocent, is disregarded by the court due to his race. The main issue was not even the lack of care for racial equality in this case, but the fact that he was placed on death row before his case went to trial. This is one of many unjust cases that have happened in the past and that are currently happening in the system revolving around the death penalty. The remaining excerpts from the book

I. “ Judge Patrick Pirtle is the district judge of the 251st District Court of Randall County, Texas, and this case, a capital murder case, is on the docket of that Court. “ (http://www.goextranet.net/Seminars/Examples/Disqualify/State%27sRecuseJudge.htm)

America is again divided by something that we need a solution for right away. Today, it is between the people who believe mandatory life in prison for juveniles should be abolished and those who believe the opposite. If a teenager committed murder and any other heinous act they indeed should be sentenced to life. We cannot let people get away with that. They took the life of another, so they should see how it feels. There are many reasons why you should believe juvenile life sentences should still be legal such as the effect it has on the victims families, the accountability these teens should have, and just how ludicrous any other counter argument can be.

Bryan Stevenson’s primary focus as a lawyer is death penalty cases and fights to get wrongfully accused inmates off death row. We are introduced to Walter McMillan’s case where he is charged for a crime he did not commit. Despite hard evidence that would prove he’s innocent, because its coming from the black community, its disregarded by the court. He even had an all-white jury involved in his case. In fact, the most shocking part about this case is that Walter was placed on death row before his case went to trial, which is illegal. This is one of the many unjust cases that have happened in the past and that are currently happening.

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

Darryl Hunt is an African American born in 1965 in North Carolina. In 1984, he was convicted wrongfully of rape and murder of Deborah Sykes, a young white woman working as a newspaper editor. This paper researches oh his wrongful conviction in North Carolina. Darryl Hunt served nineteen and a half years before DNA evidence exonerated him. The charges leveled against him were because of inconsistencies in the initial stages of the case. An all-white bench convicted the then nineteen-year-old Hunt, even though there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. A hotel employee made false claims that he saw Hunt enter the hotel bathroom, and later emerge with bloodstained towels. Other witnesses also fixed Hunt to the case.

“Erik and Lyle went on a shooting rampage and killed their parents, Kitty and Jose Menendez on August 20, 1989. The theory of the prosecutions supporting charges of murder was that these killings were motivated by greed and the brothers’ desire to acquire by early inheritance their parent’s considerable wealth” Menendez v. Terhune (2005). This was not the case at all. “Erik and Lyle claimed at trial that the killings were result of years of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, and thus not murder, but only manslaughter” Menendez v. Terhune (2005).

Severance works somewhat differently in federal criminal trials because this case involves the indictment of more than one defendant Jones, Walsh and Bert. In Bert 's situation, his defense attorney will provide an argument that a joint trail might be unfair against Bert or reaching a decision on the rape charges against him. The Severance is not automatic because the Federal rule 14 allows judges broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a severance to Bert. To be successful, Bert’s defense will to fill a motion for his severance which must show the concerns for Bert 's right to a fair trial outweigh the goals of the joinder. One of the most successful grounds for seeking severance for Bert arises when Bert wishes not to testify on all, some or any of the charges in the trail but chooses to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege on one or more charges. The separating by court order, such as separate trials for Bert, Jones, and Walsh who are charged with the same crime, or trying the negligence aspect of the rape charge or any other charge before the trail. Such division of issues in the trail is sometimes called "bifurcation." ("Burton 's Legal Thesaurus," 4E. (2007).

White was shocked to hear that his execution date was drawing closer because White thought that he was in appeal process. Stevenson petition both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court to delay White’s execution because his former attorney missed appeals and the failed to procedures (Death Penalty Information Center, 2015). Mr. White’s case is an example how important an adequate representation in a capital punishment trial is to the defendant’s

Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he