Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon : Lies Of A Cop

Robert Carpenter, though the conviction of manslaughter as presented in the case is justifiable to warrent a guilty conviction it is also insfficent enough to justify a conviction of

The United States Court of appeals ruled that the suppressed evidence is purely impeaching evidence and no defense request has been made, the suppressed evidence is material only if its introduction probably would have resulted in acquittal. Given a minor role of Phillips' testimony and the limited impact that Phelps statement had on the jury's assessment of Phillips credibility, Maddox could not demonstrate that so the evidence probably would have resulted in an acquittal. Also, the evidence was immaterial under United States V.Blasco; the defendant filed a joint motion to suppress all physical evidence gathered by the officers and any statements made by the defendant. The magistrate found that the defendant did not have to raise a fourth amendment challenge and its suppression did not violate his (Maddox’s) due process right. For ongoing reasons, the district court's dismissal of Maddox's habeas petition was affirmed.

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

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)

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Renegotiation of reality occurs when, by virtue of the institutionalized process of police interrogations, the suspect perceives that his initial reality holds no value to the interrogator or to the outcome of the interrogation, when he lacks agency to defend his reality, and when there is no other option. In this paper, I will illustrate how each of these factors facilitates false confessions and will use the Norfolk Four case as my vehicle for exploration and analysis.

Rise of the Warrior Cop, by Radley Balko, centers around police in the United States and how it has gone through militarization throughout the years. Militarization is a process in which the police departments take on tactics that are similar to the tactics used by the military. Police forces were initially made to make our environment a safer place to live in. In this book, Balko explains how that has changed. Practices of policing first began when people would get hired, unofficially, to keep slaves under control and catch them if they try to run away. These people were sometimes known as slave catchers. Soon it evolved into formal policing, allowing police to catch criminals and make the neighborhood safe. However, today it is not so much about catching criminals; it involves a lot of violence and Balko questions whether this is even constitutional. In his writing, Balko brings awareness to the horrible tactics police are using in today’s society and how we could fix it.

The constitutional issue later appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where they discussed the case’s “two separate issues, a voluntariness issue regarding a confession and a harmless error issue,” as stated by Mr. Jarrett during the trial at the United States Supreme Court (“Arizona v. Fulminante. Oyez.org”).” In Arizona v. Fulminante, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to uphold the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision: Fulminante would receive a new trial and the confession would not be allowed; this would be for future law reference. The Supreme Court, profoundly, ruled that a coerced confession could not account as evidence against the person being tried (“Arizona v. Fulminante”. Lawschool).

He signed the confession willingly. The prosecution was proper, his conviction was based on Arizona law, and his imprisonment was just. The Supreme Court should uphold his conviction and should not further cripple the work of police.

the weapons voided the defendant's fourth amendment, stating officer McFadden had no probable cause to stop them. The motion to suppress was overruled on the basis that McFadden had the benefit of experience. The prosecution the argued that the search incident to the stop was legal because it was purely for the officer’s protection. The court then made a point to distinguish an investigative stop from an arrest, and a frisk from a full search. It was established that McFadden had the right to pat them down due to a reasonable belief that Terry and Chilton could be armed. After the court denied the motion to suppress Terry and Chilton pled guilty and waived their jury trial. Terry and Chilton appealed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed it,

Texas Court found Johnson innocent, and it decided to reverse the conviction made by the Dallas County Criminal Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District. The Texas Court stated that his act was symbolic speech, and it was protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. According to the article The United States Decision, “the State asserted two interest: preserving a flag as a symbol of national unity and preventing breaches of the peace” which did not help to support the case, and it was overturned by the previous ruling. Not satisfied with what happened, the State of Texas appealed the case to the United States Supreme

This paper contains expert information snitching, evidence on eye witness testimony, and proven study on false confessions. Appendix 1 shows the leading causes of wrongful convictions in United States. The first credited study and research analysis on wrongful convictions will demonstrate the seriousness of this problem and the need for a resolution. Various other authors and reports have been reviewed for the purpose of this research paper.

Murphy wants to remove is confession in court due to the violation of his 5th amendment and Miranda rights were violated. The probation officer did not tell

Jones should not have been allowed to be used against him in his trial. Allowing the entry of his statements is a direct violation of his Constitutional rights. Mr. Jones was compelled to make the statements he made to Officer Booker. He would not have made them on his own free will. If an attorney had been present, as requested, his right to not incriminate himself would have been enforced.

Almost everyone who has seen a cop television show or movie has heard the saying “You have the right to remain silent”. In America, people are raised to believe that the justice system never fails, and that no matter what happens justice will always prevail, though for some people this safety net has failed them. Since the late 1980s six studies have documented 250 interrogation-induced false confessions. Police-induced false confessions are the result of multistep process and sequence of influence, persuasion, and compliance. Imagine that a solider of the U.S. military is brought in for questioning, kept locked up for sixteen hours in an interrogation room, constantly threatened with the death penalty if they did not confess to the crime, and the whole time left without representation. In 1997 this was the case for four individuals from Norfolk, Virginia held without representation and forced to give false confessions.