Common Pleas V. Conviction Case Study

Case Name: State of Texas VS. Douglas Nathan Palmer. NO- 6985-C. State’s motion for Judge to disqualify or recuse

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

Ratio: The trial judge inadvertently or not, effectively withdrew from the jury’s consideration the issue of provocation at the second stage of events and since the appellant’s loss of self-control may have continued to that stage, there cannot be said to be no miscarriage of justice.

Case 1 is an appeal to the conviction rendered by District Court Judge Bradley on

The Council filed for reinstatement on February 22 2005 [6]. Upon rehearing on March 14 2005 [7], Pain J ordered the Plaintiff to restrain from his previous property usage [8].

Wrongful convictions are common in the court-system. In fact, wrongful convictions are not the rare events that you see or hear on televisions shows, but are very common. They stem from some sort of systematic defect that lead to wrongful convictions such as, eyewitness misidentification testimony, unvalidated or improper forensic science, false confessions and incriminating statements, DNA lab errors, false confessions, and informants (2014). Bringing awareness to all these systematic defects, which result in wrongful, is important because it will better adjust the system to avoid making the same mistakes with future cases. However, false confession is not a systematic defect. It does not occur because files were misplaced or a lab technician put one too many drops. False confessions occur because of some of psychological attempt to protect oneself and their family. Thus, the courts responsibility should be to reduce these false confessions.

The court reversed the trial court’s affirmation and remanded the case for a new trail.

2. The second issue for review is whether the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the contestant Austin by refusing to allow the 1984 codicil to be submitted to the jury.

Thus, the court determined that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:961, 40:962 could have no application in the prosecution of a person for the mere status or condition that might possibly arise unintentionally or involuntary. The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the judgment that revoked the suspension of two concurrent 10-year sentences for violating the conditions of his probation.

over again. The court may have not looked at the positive aspects of the appellant, but since he

In order to be able to appeal, we have to find out if there was a legal error that occurred in the trial court, and that such an error was material, thus, it would have changed the outcome of the trial.

In my opinion, the United States in the case of Bailey was not in the wrong to detain Polo aka Chunon Bailey while searching his apartment. I believe the officers did everything in their power to make sure they had valid evidence before requesting a search warrant for Polo's apartment and good reasoning to detain him at the crime scene. In Michigan v. Summers the court allowed the officers, who were conducting the search, to detain the tenant while the search is being done. Consequently, the court did not state when the detainment should occur, so using the Fourth Amendment as a model for reasonableness, the court of appeals decided that officers could detain a tenant who leaves the vicinity, considering that the detainment happened in a timely

The prosecution’s mistake, which could be completely argued as deciding the outcome of this case, was to file the case in downtown district rather than in

Whenever an appellate court reverses a trial court decision, it instructs that court to rehear the case using the correct law and procedures. If the court sees that a “gross miscarriage of justice” is being done or that an error was obviously committed, they will usually overturn the trial court’s decision (Coffin, 85). In the vast majority of cases, the decision of a Court of Appeal is final. The state Supreme Court does not review the vast majority of cases – it steps in to resolve new or disputed questions of law. It is also the highest state appellate court for civil matters (supreme.courts.state

Procedural History: Chief Judge (Carr) transferred case to Magistrate Judge (Pearson). Pearson denies motions for summary judgment for both parties and grants Averill 's motion to compel discovery. Pearson overruled in part, denying both motions for summary and denying motion to compel discovery.