In The Matter Of R-A-M Summary

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

They had to work in Tobacco field 6 days a week and 12 hours a day

A. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Correctly found that S.B. 1070 is Preempted Because it Interferes with the Administration and Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws

The ruling by the 11th U.S Circuit court of Appeals has had an adverse effect from a forensic standpoint. This ruling seems to have open the door for suspects that are involved in child pornography investigations. Any suspect that has such materials

The juvenile offender also pled guilty in a court of law, regarding his possession of a

Case Summary: Many states wanted to adopt policies that would limit the lives of illegal immigrants. Arizona being the primary state vying for laws to punish unauthorized immigrants. On April 23, 2010 the governor of Arizona signed a law designed to “ ... identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants.” The United States seeking to stop the law before it was in effect, argued that the law was in conflict with the federal laws on illegal immigration. In the law signed by Arizona, given was four provisions, a condition in an agreement or law. The four provisions were (1) that being in Arizona without the proper legal documentation

The Facts: A judge out of a New York Family court found 12-year old Winship (Defendant) had committed an act of stealing money from a pocketbook in a locker that if it had been committed by an adult it would have been a crime. But due to it being a 12-year old, the judge relying on a preponderance of the evidence, the standard of proof required by the New York Family Court Act, led the way of giving good reason that justified the fact that a young person did the crime that he was charged with. Winship had to dealt with a finding like this had to be based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This decision was supported by the New York Court of Appeals and sustained the constitutional, but Winship was granted a review by the United States Supreme Court.

Mapp was arrested for possessing obscene pictures, after police illegally obtained them. At the time Ohio had a statute that made the possession of obscene literature criminal. At Mapp’s trial no search warrant was admitted into evidence, however she was still convicted. The Court citing Wolf vs Colorado found that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in criminal prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Court. “unlawful searches and seizure” “right to privacy”

In People v Smith, Ricky Franklin Smith pled guilty to breaking and entering and being a fourth offense habitual offender in a Michigan Courtroom. Smith was sentenced and he believed his sentence was harsh so he appealed his sentence to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Smith’s counsel argued Smith was “entitled to be resentenced because the presentence investigation report contained references to his juvenile criminal record which had been automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913.[5]” (People v Smith, 1991). In two previous cases, People v Price (1988) and People v Jones (1988), the Michigan Court of Appeals issued contradicting rulings regarding using juvenile records during sentencing.

Jae Lee v. United States of America should have been an open and shut case back in 2016. Jae Lee, a noncitizen permanent resident, was convicted of being in possession of ecstasy with the intent to distribute. Because of his noncitizen status this particular offense qualified as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act, meaning he was subject to mandatory deportation. Lee’s court appointed attorney continually advised him that if he “took a plea bargain he would not be deported stating ‘the government cannot deport you’ if deportation was not in the plea agreement” (Jae Lee, 2017). Lee contested that had he known taking a plea would result in deportation he would instead have tried his luck at a trial.

Matier’s motion for summary judgement should be denied because the posting of Kemp smoking a bong is highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities. While Matier may perceive that the post was not highly offensive when she posted an old college picture of Kemp smoking a bong. It is highly offensive for Kemp an Assistant District Attorney, who has a reputation and moral standard to uphold to have his private pictures posted on social media. Also, Matier posting the picture was not of legitimate public concern because Matier just wanted to play a joke on Kemp to embarrass him. Therefore, Matier’s motion for summary judgement should be denied because the posting of Kemp smoking a bong is highly offensive and the matter is not

forward in their efforts to deport to him” (Dolnick 24). However, an immigration judge argued

R/s reportedly Kye’s (7) two 15-year-old sisters are teaching him bad and gross things. R/s the 15-year-old sisters also hit Kye. R/s Kye is afraid and scared to be around his sisters. R/s Susan (mother) is aware that the girls hit Kye, but not that they are teaching him bad and gross things. From CHIPS household summary minor children, Arianna (15), Arielle (15), and Jamellah (9) are in the home.

2. In the Xiamen case of the late nineties, a businessman named Li Changxing bribed an entire city administration, as well as the military, in order to smuggle in $6 billion worth of goods. He was later exiled to Canada.

The allusion to M*A*S*H occurs when Charlie watches the final episode of M*A*S*H with his family. Although the whole family watched the episode together, Charlie and his father shared a secret moment which resulted in a stronger connection between Charlie and his father. It’s used during Christmas time on Charlie's birthday when he wasn’t sure on what to get his father. Charlie then remembers that moment and how much his father would probably love to receive a gift that reminded both of them about that moment. When Charlie he gives his dad the gift he was thrilled and he winked at Charlie, remembering that moment the two of them shared.