Creighton V. Martin 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

Brown v. Board of education combined five separate cases, Oliver Brown et al. v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, Briggs v. Elliot, Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Gebhart v. Belton, and Bolling v. Sharpe. The case was sponsored by the NAACP.

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

Issue? Was the exchange of a firearm for drugs applicable under the federal law against the use of a firearm in the commission of a drug offense.

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

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

Since the inception of mandatory minimum cocaine laws in 1986 to the advent of the Armstrong case, not a single white offender had been convicted of a crack cocaine offense in federal courts serving Los Angeles and its six surrounding counties. Rather, virtually all white offenders were prosecuted in state court, where they were not subject to that drug’s lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. The impact of the decision to prosecute the black defendants in federal court was significant. In federal court they faced a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 10 years and a maximum of life without parole if convicted of selling more than 50 grams of crack. By contrast, if prosecuted in California state court, the defendants would have received a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of five years (United States v. Armstrong, 1996).

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

Created a new procedure in which they could mix as many drugs during a prosecution

On the day of October 21, 2015 the accused, Johnny Joshua Uy was nearing the end of his trial. Mr. Uy's case was presided over by Madam Justice Power and was tried on the Supreme Court Criminal level; Mr. Uy also elected to be tried by judge and jury. Mr. Uy was charged with three serious indictable offences. The charges laid against the accused was importing/exporting a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a controlled substance. All three charges can be found under the Canada's Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The first charge importing/exporting a controlled substance can be found under section 6(1) of the act. Section 6(1) states: “Except as authorized under the regulations, no person

Edward Dewey was a 27-year-old man with multiple drug related offences. From Bolivia Mr. Dewey was arriving back to Canada when he was searched and was found with over seven ounces of cocaine in customs. He was then convicted of importing drugs under the Narcotics Control Act and was sentenced for up to eight years in prison.

United States, narcotic agents unlawfully entered Toy’s laundry and Toy indicated that Yee was selling narcotics. The agents found Yee along with drugs and he made a deal to give up the supplier Wong Sun. The agents were able to arrest Wong Sun and he voluntarily returned to the police station to make a statement. At Yee’s trial it was found that the drugs were excluded as part of the fruit of the poisonous tree because the search was done without a warrant. Wong Sun’s lawyer argued that his confession should be excluded as well, but an exception was found because he voluntarily returned to the station to make a statement (Kessler, 2010).

I went to the Palais de Justice de Montréal and saw, in superior court, the trial of the Crown against Ms.Gardner. The 26 years old woman was arrested 4 years ago for importation and possession of powdered cocaine when she landed at Montréal’s Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport from Jamaica, where she was on vacation. In the 2 suitcases she was carrying, they found over 30kg of cocaine which was separated between the two suitcases. That would have been equivalent to over thirty thousand doses had it made its way in the streets and its value is estimated from 2.4 to 3.5 million dollars. The reason why she was carrying such a large amount so badly hidden is unclear since the process was close to an end and both parties were just summarizing their evidences. The normal sentence for her

“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?