Discrimination Against Tom

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.

not have one focal point, which gave me an idea that she was lying. When Tom was giving

Racism is defined as prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. In the workforce, the issue of racism and discrimination has been brought to the center of conversations around the world. Companies claim to be “colorblind” and not hire somebody based on their race or gender, but the employment rates among minorities and women around the world is significantly lower than the majority in the given country. There is also the growing issue of minorities, such as blacks in america, making significantly less money than whites. This issue affects people all around the world who happen

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit admitting that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had confirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment. The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence couldn’t have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals ' ruling was confirmed. A defendant 's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the various state and federal cases that interpret its obligation that the prosecution discloses material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.

Attorneys representing Fernandez seek to have statements made by Fernandez during police interrogation suppressed. The presiding judge ruled that statements made by Fernandez during police interrogations are not admissible, because Fernandez “Miranda rights” to waive his rights to remain silent and consult an attorney were violated. Sexual battery charges are also dropped against Fernandez for lack

The rule applies because the evidence obtained by the government in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights can't be used against him or her. By filing a motion to suppress before the trial asking the judge to rule the evidence as inadmissible, a defendant may prevent the prosecution from using illegally obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule usually applies to suppression of physical evidence (for example, a murder weapon, stolen property, or illegal drugs) that the police seize in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.

Police in New York were approached by a woman who said she had been rape, upon further questioning she was able to give a description of her rapist. Before searching for the man the victim warned police that he was carrying a firearm, (FindLaw, 2016). The police found the man, Benjamin Quarles and frisked him which is when they discovered he had an empty shoulder holster, (Case Briefs, 2016). Police questioned Quarles as to where the weapon was to which Quarles responded with its location. After the weapon was obtained Quarles was read his Miranda Rights and was arrested. The trial and appellate courts of New York decided that Quarles’s statements prior to being read his Miranda warning and the gun inadmissible evidence for the trial.

To begin with, The Exclusionary Rule states that evidence illegally obtained will not be used in the trial. This rule has been in place in some form or another. It was not until Mapp v. Ohio that all states were required to abide by this rule. In Mapp v. Ohio, the defendant’s house was illegally searched for evidence of being related to recent bombings. The officers did not find anything to support this claim, but they did find other unrelated incriminating evidence. This evidence was ignored due to the Exclusionary Rule, thus resulting in nothing to prosecute Mapp.

See attached copy of Statement of Miranda Rights. Kistner was explained what I was investigating. He stated he was familiar with the incident because Green notified his stepfather, Warren Yates, and accused him of stealing the purse. Kistner stated his mother and stepfather searched his room for the purse. Kistner denied taking Yates’s purse. I asked Kistner to tell me about his visit with his grandmother. Kistner stated he and his friends were hanging out on the farm property. Prior to leaving the farm property, he wanted to say hello to his grandmother. All 4 subjects went inside Yates residence. Kistner remembered talking to Green about her back surgery and general conversation with Yates. Since Kistner denied taking the purse, I asked him who he suspected. Kistner gave several answers. He stated his grandmother could have lost or misplaced the purse. He stated his Aunt Elaine was capable of hiding the purse and accusing him of stealing it to get him into trouble. He stated he could vouch for Lipe and Harsy, but he did not know Erica well enough. I asked Kistner if anyone left the room by themselves. He stated the only person that left the room alone was Erica. She went to the bathroom. Kistner stated he did not see the purse with of any of his friends after they left the

Decision: (5-4) Yes, unless there are demonstrated “procedural safeguards” that can effectively secure the Fifth Amendment rights of the accused, the prosecution may not use any statements from questioning after the accused is

Even though, he “filed a motion to suppress his confession claiming it was obtained in violation of the law and, therefore, was inadmissible under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure [A]rticle 38.23” (Marion).

Issue 1: Due to the fact that the police officers did not explain Miranda his rights before conducting the interrogation, does that makes his confession not true?

With the exclusionary rule in effect in all fifty states, a person who is convicted of a crime has the possibility of getting off because of police tampering with evidence or obtaining pertinent evidence without a warrant. This alone allows criminals to walk because of lack of evidence that is admissible to the court room (Standen 1). The exclusionary rule also makes the prosecutions job harder in the case that if an officer has tampered with evidence that was pertinent to her case or has obtained evidence in the case illegally without a warrant. This makes her job harder since the evidence that was found illegally is not admissible to the jury which makes it harder to convict without enough evidence against the defendant (Standen 9).

Another legal case that was reviewed, and is a directly correlated to EEOC and Civil Rights discrimination issues is the Alaimo v. Thompsonville Fire District #2 and Collen Ann Reidy. In this case we again see Civil Rights Act violations as well as Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 under 29 USC § 791 and Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 violations (Phelan, 2015). Additionally, we see State of Connecticut Workers Compensation Retaliation Violations related to Conn. Gen. § 31-290a and Conn. Gen. § 31-76b. In this case we again see retaliation against Alaimo for he didn’t agree with a politicians plans not to build a new fire station. Instead of following the laws, statues, regulations and policies as they relate to an employee the Commissioners

While the world has unanimously advanced and is more accepting of change, the workplace continues to be a place of discrimination, prejudice and inequality. Discrimination is broadly defined to ‘distinguish unfavourably’, isolate; and is context based (Pagura, 2012). Abrahams (1991) described the workplace as an ‘inhospitable place’ where gender disparity and wage gaps persist (Stamarski & Son Hing, 2015). Among other states and countries, the Australian government actively implements and passes laws to protect and maintain equal employment rights. While the objective of these laws is ‘to eliminate discrimination,’ the regulatory mechanisms in the legislation are largely ineffective at achieving this ultimate goal (Smith, 2008). However,