Jason Stockley Case

In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.

Throughout this book there are many important details leading up to the trial of James Richardson. James Richardson was the accused in the case of the deceased NY Police Officer John Skagen. John Skagen was shot to death in a NY subway station on June 28, 1972. The Facts in this case are clear; Officer

The first major fact that influences the juries agreement that the accussed is not guilty is the doubts of a key piece of evidence; the murder weapon, a switch

cause to search him thus the search was illegal and the gun should not be admitted as evidence.

There was a shootout that went viral recently in Maryland and the information about it is now available for us to discuss. The young lad who was killed during the shootout is identified as Jason Hendrix who is 16 years old and was from Corbin, Kentucky. The Baltimore County Police officers, Maryland have been on a hunt to find this young lad who is a suspect of his parent’s and his 12 years old sisters’ death. Right from there his hunt was on for the cops of Maryland.

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.

that Servin killed Boyd, and that the officer fired the shots knowing they were likely to cause

Kulbicki’s file stayed in the state court until 2006, when Kulbicki added an additional claim that his defense attorneys did not adequately question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence presented by the CBLA. Kulbucki lost in the state courts and then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Appeals then vacated Kulbucki’s conviction based on the fact that Kulbucki’s attorneys did not question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence, thus the defense attorneys did not provide Kulbucki with effective assistance during the trial. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a per curiam opnion, that the Court of Appeals based the decision to vacate Kulbicki’s conviction on contemporary views of ballistic evidence. Since there was no reason for counsel to investigate the validity of the ballistic evidence in 1995, the attorneys provided effective assistance to Kulbicki because effective assistance did not require attorneys to verify the legitimacy of the ballistic evidence (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S. Ct. 2

Due to a lack of evidence, the LAPD wrongly accused Simpson of murdering Brown and Goldman. The glove that was supposedly worn by the killer did not fit Simpson. CBS news team said, “The leather glove seemed too tight for Simpson to put on easily, especially over the latex gloves he wore underneath.”. The black leather glove had to fit Simpson for him to be guilty but it was way to tight and could not

My first article is entitled, “Detroit Cops Unharmed After 'Fierce Gun Battle ' with Suspect,” posted on December 1st at 4:46 Pm. According to journalist Katrease Stafford, three police officers were on a routine patrol when they found a vehicle on the side of the road that seemed abandoned. The officers pulled up behind the car to investigate, finding a man standing near the vehicle. The police approached the man in an attempt to ascertain whether or not he was in need of assistance when another man noticed. He drew a pistol and opened fire on the three police officers, who took cover and started shooting back in defense. The unnamed man had a history of violent crimes, having been recently paroled for second-degree murder. His gun jammed after firing five shots; he was taken to the hospital after being hit by a bullet fired by one of the officers. The police have not yet revealed his name and are looking into the encounter more thoroughly.

On Sunday September 18th. 2016. at approximately 8:30 PM an off-duty officer fatally shot a would be robber. The incident took place on the corner of Liberty Avenue and Merrick Boulevard. The off duty office was in route to his job for Allied Security dressed in his uniform when he was approached by the attempted robber. The attempted robber demanded that the officer hand over his gun and cash at gunpoint. After which the officer removed his weapon and shot the attempted robber. The injured man was taken to Queens General Hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

The grand jury decided that there was not enough evidence to indict two Cleveland police officers who were involved in the death of a 12-year old boy. Tamir Rice was shot within second of the officers pulling up to the scene where they were told Rice had a weapon.

presents a knife identical to the murder weapon--a weapon that the jurors were certain was

Justice Tatting, a positivist, withdrew from the case without a verdict because, first, he could not reconcile whether the crime took place within the Commonwealth of Newgarth in which the country had authority over the 5-member team or outside its jurisdiction, where authority is lacking and natural law becomes essential in their decision making. Secondly, the Supreme Court of Newgarth was governed by legislative or court statues. Thus, the court or government does not have the right to settle disputes based on the act of nature if the event took place out of their jurisdiction. In addition, despite his acknowledgement that the defendants committed murder, the justice, citing the famous case, the Commonwealth

This case is stated as a criminal case as Mr Bogart was approached by the police on the scene and made a confession. The State took him to court after his confession to determine whether he should stand trial for murder. Therefore this case is stated as a criminal case.