Cholley V. Wayne County Argumentative Essay

I will also call to testify the prosecution’s witness and innocent bystander Richard Green to the witness stand. He will help us positively identify the defendants, and reinforce that the defendants did in fact commit the crimes charged, as he was the only eye witness that saw the defendants leave the scene of the crime. These two men witnessed the crime take place and are testifying that the two defendants did in fact kill Mrs. Lazar.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the nation and is responsible for being the impartial judge in interpreting the law of the land. One of the biggest struggles the Court can face is having to rule for what is constitutional over what is morally right. This is not referring to Plessy v. Ferguson where we only know it was morally wrong in hindsight. This is referring to a case where the judges knew fully well that what had happened was a tragedy and an injustice yet, they had to rule against what any normal human being would vote for. Imagine the difficulty in that. Now, imagine the public backlash when it was announced. The conflict of morality vs. constitutionality in the Court in the case of DeShaney v Winnebago County is apparent

Board of County Commissioners of Brevard V. Snyder set a precedent since the Court concluded the comprehensive plan, provides for future land use through gradual and ordered growth, and it is not a literal guide. Thus, Local governments have the discretion to decide that certain land uses should be denied, even if they comply with comprehensive plan guidelines.

During the months of September to the end of November 2008 Mr Hughes resurfaces with six serious criminal offences, mostly involving break enter and steal of which was from a business, a warehouse, a workshop and two homes. Two of these offences involved criminal acts that incurred separate charges, which were

Worrilow’s CID report, which shows on 11/03/2011 he was contacted by Det. Worrilow. In the report Worrilow asked Chubb what Judge Vann said to him in the phone conservation that day. In the report Chubb said Vann inquired about the Riley matter and Vann wanted to know why there was no arrest. Vann also requested Sabillon contact her. Also in the report Vann question if a warrant was being done and wanted to know why there wasn’t a warrant being made. Vann asked Chubb why the police did not do anything. Chubb said even though he couldn’t remember the conservation with Vann, Chubb said he told Worrilow in the CID report about the conservation right after it happened, and it was probably what he

June 14, 2017, Melrico Nelvis was issued Bail Conditions that placed him on the GPS monitoring program for the charge of Aggravated Assault/DV. The Bail Conditions state that Nelvis is to stay away from the home of the victim, Derrika Smith, and is not to be anywhere the victim likely to be. July 25, 2017, at 8:31 p.m. and at 8:36 p.m. Nelvis entered the home exclusion zone of the victim. Officers had made the scene and the victim was in the area, but stated she had not seen Nelvis. Regardless, the Bail Conditions state that Nelvis is to stay away from the home of the victim or anywhere the victim is likely to be. Nelvis’s actions place him in violation of the Bail Conditions that are active until his next court date on August 23,

Chosen arbitrarily, this report by League of Women Voters is definitely obscure for readers who are new to a context of Shelby County v. Holde case and does not provide any kind of references for background or alternative opinions. However, the simplicity of reasoning on impact of the case, which is translated by quoting president of organization Elisabeth MacNamara creates a kind of biased impression on a topic, presenting the opinion that the court decision merely “left voters and their rights at risk of discrimination” (“Hundreds…”), even though a well thought through alternative opinion is

From across town, an off-duty cop named Sean Wallace heard the alert blare through his scanner, then barreled over to the scene before a crisis intervention officer could arrive. Without provocation,

My client, Spice Petty, has been accused of intentionally and knowledgeably damaging someone’s property, known as criminal mischief.

The defendants criminal record dates back to 2009 and consist of 2 arrest, including harassment, and sexual assault. Charges for harassment were dismissed in 2009, and in 2017 the charge for sexual assault was amended to criminal sexual contact.

and Mrs. Taylor reported Cameron has been living back with them since 7th grade. Prior to that, he stayed in North Carolina with his godparents and family friends for approximately 12 years. Cameron’s older brother still resides in North Carolina. Cameron indicated his desire to return there. Mrs. Taylor expressed, “Cameron feels he had a little more freedom in North Carolina”. Court records indicated when he lived in North Carolina, he was described as, “aggressive in nature” and he received the assault with a deadly weapon charge accepted by Chesapeake Court Services for probation supervision through the Interstate Compact for Juveniles. Mrs. Taylor reported he has not been physical in the home nor at school. Her chief complaints are that he sometimes talks back when she asks him to do something and his actions are impulsive in nature. As a family, they enjoy going to Mount Trashmore, the city parks, and riding bikes together. A home visit was conducted on March 12, 2018. The home was observed to be appropriately furnished and there was adequate space. The home has two bedrooms, living and dining areas, one bathroom and a kitchen. No issues were seen in the neighborhood. All houses appeared to be maintained appropriately. The area appeared to consist of a diverse group of both renters and homeowners. The residence is very close to public transportation, schools, shopping areas, libraries, parks, recreational areas and medical facilities. Mrs. Taylor indicated criminal activity is sometimes present. The family is aware of local community resources and has

“During this meeting, Mr. Marcus reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out the mission of the Public Defender’s Office, which is to provide aggressive, competent, and ethical representation to indigent persons facing deprivation of liberty or other civil rights in a cost-effective manner,” the supervisors said in a statement. “This

Sergeant Green interviewed witness 16-year-old Aubrey Everette who is a daughter of Ms. Everette. Aubrey’s bedroom shares a common wall with the master bedroom. Aubrey didn’t leave her bedroom and did not see anything physical between the two parties. Aubrey stated she was awakened at about 3:00 to 3:15 a.m. by a banging noise coming from her mother’s and Officer Scott’s bedroom. Aubrey stated her mother first said, “You throw water on me, then you choke me, then you hit me!” Officer Scott replied, “Like, really,” and Aubrey said she heard a lot of mumbling. Aubrey said, “When I heard the bang against the wall, and then I heard my mom say, ‘Really, don’t touch me again,’ and then there was another bang and she started crying really loud, like hysterically crying.”

Officers arrived on the scene and observed an open door on the residence. Officers made entry into the residence to clear the residence of possible threats, victims, and to assess the scene. During the

Prosecutorial misconduct is something that rarely gets brought to the light. Mainly because prosecutors seldom get punished for their misconduct. Prosecutors are held to a higher moral standard than the average person because of their knowledge of the law. However, some prosecutors use this as an excuse to cut corners and think that he or she is untouchable. The job of a prosecutor is to find justice, but some prosecutors just want to get a conviction every time. Some prosecutors are willing to do whatever it takes to do so, even if it means breaking the rules.