Case Brief: Lehmann V. Wieghat

So steve was involved in the robbery with going that day and the communication but isn’t responsible for death cause he wasn’t there when it

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

Holding: Kelbel's conflicting explanations for Kailyn's injuries did not coincide with testimonies given my medical examiners, Lindsey, Olster, and a neighbor, so the court holds that evidence presented is sufficient for the jury to reach a verdict. The court also concludes

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

Nicole’s wounds were so severe that she bled out not long after the attack (Birnkworth). Goldman went to Nicole’s house to deliver some eyeglasses Nicole’s mother had forgotten at Mezzaluna, which is where Ronald worked (Mueller). It is believed that O.J. went to Nicole’s condo to kill her, however Ronald Goldman showed up and ruined the plans of O.J. Simpson (Bensons). Therefore, Ronald Goldman is considered an accidental murder victim (Bensons). Goldman fought for himself and Nicole, he put up a strong fight (Birnkworth). Nicole on the other hand, went down quickly (Birnkworth). Plenty of evidence was found at the crime scene. A left bloody glove, footprints, five drops of blood that wasn’t either of the victims,

District Attorney Katie Rayburn said there were sufficient evidences in this case to be classified as a manslaughter. It was beyond proven that Carter was guilty. The intent or conduct of Carter was intentional in Roy’s death. Rayburn claimed Carter did not need to be physically present to commit a crime. Rayburn stated that Carter actions were despicable and malicious toward Roy’s death.

McLachlin concluded that there was a person whose right was at risk by the processes that occurred. Hebert had the right to choose whether to make a statement to the police or to remain silent.

Camm was found guilty three times because the first two convictions had been dismissed. Camm’s guilty verdict was overturned after the state ruled that testimony about Camm’s extramarital affairs had unfairly biased the jurors (Lenz). This evidence suggests that the affairs should not be used as a motive to kill his family. There were a lot of arguments about bloodstain evidence found on Camm’s shirt. The prosecutor's case centered around tiny bloodstains found on the shirt Camm was wearing the night of the murders. Crime scene experts testified that the stains put him within feet of his child when she was shot. The defense attorneys disputed this by claiming that the blood stains could have gotten on the shirt when Camm found the bodies (Lenz). This evidence questions whether or not Camm shot his child. These were not the only issues in this

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury. For the past several weeks you have heard testimony from the defense stating that their client is innocent of murdering Mr. Wallace, a 24 year old man that was shot and killed in the early morning of March 9, 1997, as he was leaving a music industry party. He was riding in the front passenger seat of a Chevrolet Suburban when another vehicle pulled up beside his and someone opened fire. According to autopsy reports he was shot four times. The medical expert stated the bullet that killed Mr. Wallace was the bullet that entered his right hip and ripped through several organs, including his liver, heart and lung. The other bullets struck Wallace in his left forearm, his back and his left thigh. At the time of his death, he had no drugs or alcohol in his system. I have proven that the defendant murdered Mr. Wallace for no apparent reason. It is up to you to decide hold the defendant

If I was the judge in this case, I would refer to the several other cases and verdicts and see if there are any similarities between this one and the others. In bystander cases there is no duty for to assist someone is peril unless you created the danger, but there have been many exceptions to that

added: “Although our Court decided that these actions were not grounds for reversals, they are, in my view, factors that merit consideration in any petition for leniency filed.” During the trial Leonard confesses that the gun was his but when the gun was approached to the

The decision of the magistrate court was made primarily on the basis that it didn’t establish that any of the relevant weapons were “collectible firearms” this was shown in s 77(1)(c) and s 77(2) of the Weapons Act 1990. However, in respect of the Jennings J22 pistol, there was an alternative basis, being that it was not established that the respondent had “a continued and genuine interest in the study, preservation or collection of weapons”, within the meaning of s 138(3) of the Weapons Act 1990.

When accused him of stealing Janes car David falsely stated the car broke down in town. When Jane car was found near Scioto river in Portsmouth Ohio the sons accused David of hurting their mother. David said he never hurt their mom. Later was determined that car driven up the road and then backed into position, where the car was discovered. Tracks of seconded vehicle was present and Defendant father Carl Doe admitted he made those tracks when he drove to the seen with his son David. After examination of Jane car truck was wet and clean except some spots of blood and portion of pink cloth that been caught the hinge of trunk. Upon further examination blood matched Janes type of blood was found inside car. Also divers recover a bag weighted with concert contained pink robe. Pink robe tare in it and fiber matched the fibers founded in truck hinge. Jon and Don affirmed robe belonging to mother Jane. After examining Defendant home blood on table, couch in substantial amounts and both arms of chair. The blood was Jane blood type. Also drop of Janes blood on David’s trousers. After Defendant was arrested her called mother Violet and insisted that his father change the tires on his truck. Also David express concern about wife being found or her body found. In spite of an extensive search for body and other incriminating evidence at victim home, around her car, area of river, Carl Doe’s farm, Jane body was never found. Supremely jury convicted him on murder violation on RC 2903.02his attorney appealing conviction. May conviction for murder be supporter wholly by circumstantial

The three chapters provide an essential theory as to why justices in the Supreme Court decide the way they do. The author names such theory as strategic account which is composed of three main categories: actions taken to accomplish a goal, strategic interaction, and the structure of the institution. However, actions taken to accomplish a goal and the justice’s strategic interaction will mainly be discussed.

The lower courts appealed for Jason’s case to be held in the supreme court .Jason Courtney was sentenced to trial in the supreme for 3 counts: possessing, using to intimidate and discharging an unlicensed firearm. On the 19th may 2006 in singleton Paul Magyar (witness) was attending a friend’s wake and later when he went in to the bathroom the accused (Jason) pulled out a pistol and said “I know how to use this”. Another witness Craig Lason who was in the bathroom at the same time decided to help, it was only when Craig noticed it was his friend Paul in danger. Craig took the gun off of Jason and pistol whipped (struck across) Jason, then Paul and Craig started punching Jason on the ground.