Tanya Mitchell frantically called 911 to report a shooting-a shooting she committed. In an act of self-defense against her abusive husband who, at the time, was threatening to kill her, she did what she had to do to save her own life. From her reports, her husband was not only abusive, but that he gave men in his “motorcycle club” permission to gang rape her-while he watched. Specific example of his sadistic abuse include him telling her they were going to get married while holding her at gunpoint, making her play Russian roulette, and even trying to rip off her nails. Her attorneys were going to use Battered Woman Syndrome (to take her psychological health based off of her abuse) as a factor in the case but were not confident it would
When prosecuting criminal domestic violence cases too many officers constructed their entire case only on statements made by the victim. However, “victims of domestic violence are more likely than victims of other violent crime to recant or refuse to cooperate in prosecutorial efforts” (Breitenbach, 2008, p. 1256). Officers must consider that victims of domestic violence may refuse to testify because of fear of retaliation, intimidation, financial dependence, emotional attachment, and/or because they reunited with the batterer. If the victim refused to testify during court, their statement against the abuser becomes hearsay evidence. Several recent cases have had a huge influence on how those statements and hearsay evidence may be
Taylor suffered serious emotional distress, part of which was fear for his and Mya’s life which led them to fleeing their home state of Massachusetts as a result of Murray’s continuous intimidations during four months. The issue in this case is whether Taylor has a claim against Murray for the intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress. Under Massachusetts law, the court will likely conclude that Taylor has a claim against Murray for his conduct toward Taylor because (1) Murray intentionally inflicted emotional distress to Taylor; (2) Murray’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) Murray’s conduct directly caused Taylor’s emotional distress; and (4) Taylor’s emotional distress was severe. See Agis v. Howard Johnson Co., 371 Mass. 140, 144-45 (Mass. 1976); Quinn v. Walsh, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 696, 706-07 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000); Cady v. Marcella, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 340-41, (Mass. App. Ct. 2000).
The case that I decided to analyze is a criminal case, State Vs Stepp. Joshua Stepp was charged with first-degree murder as well as first-degree sexual assault of his ten-month-old step daughter Cheyenne Yarley. Stepp is an ex-military man who claims to suffer from PTSD. Stepp asks that the court charge him with second-degree murder on the account that he “was unable to perform the specific intent to kill” due to his PTSD.
. The husband of the plaintiff file a petition to the court that his wife[plaintiff] is mentally ill and needs to have a court order directing the admission of her to the mental health hospital. The petition initiated by plaintiff’s husband is the order of the Wayne County probate court, and it is also appropriately certified by Doctors Wolodzko, who after appearing in her house and introducing himself as a doctor , and have a conversation with her in person that day and another day in telephone, determine that she is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and Smyk. The court gave the order and the Plaintiff was taken by ambulance from her home to a private psychiatric
Domestic violence calls to the police became popular in the 1970’s and 1980’s. History indicates that these calls were considered “family matters” that should be handled by its family. Following the landmark case of “Thurman vs. The city of Torrington”, that garnered a severe financial penalty for the police for failure to respond, changes occurred. In this case, Tracy Thurman was awarded $2.3 million when she sued the city of Torrington, CT police department for their failure to arrest her abusive husband.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants had prior knowledge that their daughter was a target for murder by a psychiatric patient and failed to warn the victim or anyone capable of stopping act. Defendants had notified campus police of patient’s intent, but after detaining him briefly, chose to release him because he “appeared rational.” Plaintiffs allege liability based on defendants’ failure to warn of impending danger, and failure to confine the patient. The Superior Court of California sustained the defendants’ demurrers to plaintiffs’ complaints. Appeal followed.
A discussion took place with Mrs. Cordell about her criminal history having the ability to negatively affect placement of Max in her care. Mrs. Cordell stated her cases where dismissed, and she has not had any other criminal history or involvement with any criminal activity since those events occurred. Mrs. Cordell was informed that although there were criminal history, it does not mean the child will not be placed in her care, but could have negative effects on placement. The assessor also informed Mrs. Cordell that although there is criminal history, it does not mean Max will not be placed in her care. After the discussion, Mrs. Cordell voiced understanding.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Jury, we want to thank you for your time and attention to this extremely important case. Before I continue to discuss the details of this case I would like to discuss a principal with you. A principle that I think is extremely important. A principle that was created to ensure the safety and protection of all citizens. This
Both the client, Lillie Bonifant and the defendant, Joe Roper, are student athletes at Justice City University (JCU). Ms. Bonifant, who is a diver for the university, did not do well on her final dive at the school’s swim tournament. Ms. Bonifant friend’s took her out on the night of the altercation with hopes of trying to cheer her up. On March 14, 2015, Bonifant and her friends arrived at the Lonely Turtle at approximately 10:00pm. Mr. Roper and his friends arrived at the Lonely Turtle shortly before 10:30. Mr. Roper was in a good mood that night since he found out that he received an internship for the summer.
]Deputy district attorney Keith Watanabe started his presentation describing domestic violence from his perspective. He began by giving the example of a case of jealousy and the knife attack by the 40-year-old virgin actor Shelley Malil. Shelley Malil believed his girlfriend was cheating on him so in retaliation he stabbed her 23 times. The importance of this case was the brutality that it inhabited and the recent news that the actor was up for parole but struck down by governor Jerry Brown. After the example of a high-profile case he prosecuted, he gave some definitions of what domestic violence involves and the frustration of recanting victims. He described that victims out of multiple reasons involving the close relationship that they have
mental state. These evidential factors all lead to emotional abuse, using the two women's illnesses as
It wasn’t as if I had much of a choice. Actually there was. However, this would settle things once and for all. Although, there were assurances from the legal team (of the best criminal attorney’s in the country) that there was nothing to worry about, but a small chance is still a chance. I did discharged a firearm and my father did thrashed Gilbert something awful in front of a room filled of witnesses (most of which just happen to be close personal friends of the Tilley family).