Clarke's Case Study

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

“The only two people that know I am innocent, is myself and the killer.” Imagine being blamed for a crime you did not commit, and nobody would believe you no matter what you said. Steven Truscott had forty-two years of his life taken from him for being charged with a crime he did not commit. He was charged at only the age of fourteen for murdering and raping twelve year old Lynne Harper. He then became the youngest death-row inmate after one of the most famous trials in the history of Canada. Steven Truscott should never have been convicted for the murder and rape of Lynne Harper due to the fact the forensic evidence was questionable the

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

Looking at the case of the State of California versus Dante Ciraolo. On September 2, 1982, Detective John Schutz of the Santa Clara Police Department received an anonymous phone complaint about someone growing marijuana in their yard. Detective Schutz, a member of the Narcotics Division, went to the location given by the caller to investigate. When he arrived at the intersection of Stebbins Avenue and Clark Avenue, he noticed the residence at 2085 Clark Avenue. From his location on the street (figure 1) Detective Schultz observed a six-foot privacy fence with an inner fence of about ten feet in height, as such, Detective Schultz could not see any evidence of any marijuana cultivation or other criminal activity.

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.

Besides section 7, section 11 (b) and 12 (1) were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights. Section 11 (b) states “any person with and offence has the right… (b) to be tried within a reasonable time” (Canadian Charter of Rights) and section 12 (1) “anyone whose rights or freedoms… have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such ready as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances” (Canadian Charter of Rights). Blencoe claimed the Commission had lost the power to make a decision because of the “unreasonable delay in processing the complaints” (Westcoastleaf, page.3) He also claimed the delay caused a lot of hate toward his family and him meaning they were a victim of abuse and denial in society.

Wrongful conviction is an issue that has plagued the Canadian Justice System since it came to be. It is an issue that is hard to sort out between horrific crimes and society’s desire to find truth and justice. Incidences of wrongful conviction hit close to home right here in Saskatchewan as well as across the entire nation. Experts claim “each miscarriage of justice, however, deals a blow to society’s confidence in the legal justice system” (Schmalleger, Volk, 2014, 131). Professionals in the criminal justice field such as police, forensic analyst, and prosecutors must all be held accountable for their implications in wrongful convictions. There are several reasons for wrongful convictions such as racial bias, false confessions, jailhouse

Among the many differing cases of wrongfully convicted Canadians, the case of Guy Paul Morin is very interesting. There were many issues that caused an innocent man from Queensville, Ontario to be convicted of the murder of Christine Jessop. We’re going to look at how the police failed to conduct a thorough investigation, how the court system failed, and how cases like this can be preventing in the future.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

This technique violates section 11(d) Charter of Rights and Freedom. The accused is not truly presumed innocent until proven guilty. (http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/CH37-4-3-2002E.pdf)

319 (2) then 281.2 (2) of the Canadian criminal code by the Court of the Queen’s Bench; which is Alberta’s superior court. The court concluded that Keegstra’s proselytizing of anti-semitic beliefs to his students constitutes reprehensible behavior under this section. It judges that this high school teacher was promoting hate against an identifiable group. Keegstra, who stands besides his actions without shame takes full responsibility for them. Although he assumes his acts, his contestation of these allegations arose based on the constitutionality of this particular section. The two pivotal constitutional violations pertaining to his trial that he brought forth are the seemingly contradictory relationship between s.319 and s.2 (b) which grants to all the freedom of thought , belief, opinion and expression. He also denoted that s. 319 (3) (a) which places the onus of proof on the person charged to prove on balance of probabilities that this person’s claims are true in order to avoid being charged. He points that this section violates s.11 (d) of the Canadian charter; declaring all people charged of a criminal offence presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable grounds. Before his trial, Keegstra’s opposition to these charges and request to have them quashed were denied by Alberta’s superior court judge McKenzie J. The Alberta judge posits that s.2 ought to be compatible with s. 15 and s.27 of the criminal code. These sections respectively grant equals rights to all Canadian regardless certain characteristics these citizens have (i.e. race, ethnic background, sex, religion, etc) and also recognizes that Canada is a multicultural society, and thus, its charter must be interpreted with regards to this fact. Ultimately, James Keegstra was found guilty in 1985 by a Jury and charged of a summary offence and given a fine of 5000$ before Judge McKenzie

The Conservative government is considering making legal changes the allow police to, instead of laying charges, issue ticket to those caught with tiny amounts of marijuana. However, these legal changes should not be interpreted as either a legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Rather they should be interpreted as additional enforcement measures that, should they need them, are available to police officers. Likewise, there is good reason to believe that this novel ‘ticketing system’ would only apply to simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana. Additionally, these tickets would function similarly to those administered for speeding, outlining a fine or presenting a court option, also people who decide to go with the court option have the ability to represent themselves or have legal counsel. However, even if the government appears to be softening up when it comes to the legalities surrounding marijuana possession, it had not long ago passed legislation that toughened laws regarding marijuana possession with the purpose of trafficking, such as in the case of the 2012 Safe Streets and Communities Act. Furthermore, some, like the NORML Women’s Alliance of Canada, say that the purposed ‘ticketing system’ does not go far enough and is only “a halfway measure.”

At 11:40, Blunt returned to his boat and began eating. At 11:55, while Mr. Blunt was eating, the police arrived and arrested Blunt, charging him with two crimes; possession of a controlled substance and maintaining a drug boat. At the time of arrest, the marijuana had not yet been divided into the smaller baggies. This was the first time Blunt had brought an illegal drug onto the boat. During his ownership of the boat, neither Blunt nor anyone else had ever used marijuana on the boat. The analysis that follows will focus on whether the state will be successful in prosecution of Cleve Blunt on the charge of maintaining a drug boat.

This week’s reading by Hughes, Ritter and Cowdery (2014) Highlighted what may be perceived as the ideological imperfections of legal thresholds for deemed supply. The first concern I had whilst reading through the article was that the onus of proof was placed upon the defendant by virtue of Australian deemed supply laws. This has ultimately removes the need for police and court to provide both the actus reus and mens rea for the individual trafficking. If the accused possesses a trafficable quantity the individual is charged with supply on the basis of possession alone.

Laws that prohibit the possession and use of street drugs are important as their aim is to protect the user, those around them, and society in general from undue harm. There has been a great push during the last 10 years to legalize marijuana and decriminalize other drugs such as cocaine and heroin on the basis that the recreational user, and even the hard-core addict, may not be causing significant harm to anyone, beyond their own personal health. In this sense, drug use is viewed as a personal choice and drug laws trample on personal freedoms without sufficient reason. Additionally, minorities are found to be arrested and convicted of drug crimes at disproportionate rates when compared to the demographics of those who use illegal drugs, which some see these type of laws as a tool of legal oppression, instead of a valid punitive function. Still, there remains sufficient reasons to maintain laws against the possession and use of controlled substances, such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin; though there is a compelling argument for the lessening of the amount punishment of the majority of users that are caught with small amounts of street drugs. This paper seeks to put forward valid reasons for the continued prohibition of drugs, while also making a case for the softening of incarceration policies.