Laimer V. Latimer Case Summary

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

The first section is for the mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison for first and second-degree murder and treason. The second section deals with firearms offences. The third section of mandatory minimum sentences address repeat offenders in seven distinct categories, which involve impaired driving and possession of unauthorized weapons (Canada, 2013). The last category of MMS in Canada deals with hybrid offences. These were implemented in the Canadian legislation in 1995. If an offender commits a crime that has been determined to result in a mandatory minimum sentence within the Canadian Legislation, the judge must implement that sentence no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors are. Due to this sentencing legislation, many innocent people are serving time in prison due to a false conviction and the lack of judicial discretion in their individual case. Even though mandatory minimum sentences offer more costs then rewards, some politicians, community members and victims of crime still support it due to the proposed retributive and deterrent effects. There have been many cases and arguments against mandatory minimum sentences especially due to the fact that it restricts the judge’s discretion during the sentencing process. These will be discussed in more depth throughout this paper.

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

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

In the end, the case did not work in Campbell’s favour, as it was overturned in the Court of Appeal, even though the trial ruled in favour of her. The only problem with her case was that the parents put forward legitimate concerns about their town’s system regarding socioeconomic status issues which, when you recognize that it’s a poorer part of the city, is something that can be fairly

This case made it to The Supreme Court. Once the appellant appealed his conviction of manslaughter that he received at the Ontario Court of Appeal on May 18th, 1990, which sentenced him to four years of imprisonment. The Crown defined manslaughter in Section 222 ( 5 ) of The Criminal Code, which states that a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being means of an unlawful act or an act of negligence. However, when The Defense challenged this section due to the unique circumstances of this case that caused this case it to go to The Supreme Court of Canada since the Defense also said that it was in conflict with Section 7 of the Charter. In conclusion, the Defense we’re trying to dispute the fact that the accused committed manslaughter.

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

Did the union violate Title I, Section 101(a) of the Landrum-Griffin Act in this case? If so, what should be the appropriate remedy?

The constitutional right in question reads from section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states, “everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment”. In order to begin considering the legality of the mandatory minimum sentence stated in Section 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) of the CDSA, the court must first consider the definition of “cruel and unusual punishment” and apply the Oakes test to determine if the provision can be saved. The meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment” as defined in R v Smith, is when it is too severe or excessive for the specific crime or where there are specific

While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,

In the case of Kennedy V. Louisiana Patrick Kennedy was found guilty in raping and sodomizing his eight-year-old stepdaughter in a Louisiana courtroom. Mr. Kennedy refused to plead guilty and stated the crime was committed by two young boys from the neighborhood. He was convicted sentenced to death 2003. On March 2nd 1988 the victim sustained severe injuries; the injuries required emergency surgery because the rape was so brutal. Louisiana law authorized capital punishment for the rape of a child twelve years and younger. Mr. Patrick Kennedy challenged his sentence under the eighteen amendments as cruel and unusual punishment. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined the challenged that the death penalty was not too harsh for such a wicked crime. In a Supreme Court decision Coker v. Georgia 1977 the United States Supreme Court concluded that capital punishment for rape of an adult women was not applicable if the victim is a child and if it did not result or contemplated in result of a death. The court discussed a number of Supreme Court case related to child vulnerability and the death penalty. In the case of Roper V. Simmons the court ruled that the death penalty could not be applied to a person if the crime was committed when they were under the age of eighteen. In another case, Atkins V. Virginia the death penalty could not be placed on a mentally ill person. The petitioner Kennedy argued that in all these cases they do not establish conformity.

On June 9th 1959, a twelve year old girl by the name of Lynne Harper was walking around her neighbourhood until she encountered a young boy from school, Steven Truscott who gave her a bicycle ride home. Once he dropped her off home and went off, she was abducted, two days later her body was found, she had been raped and strangled. By the reason of several witnesses spotting Steven and Lynne together, the Ontario police wrongly convicted him for committing murder. Steven Truscott was a 14 year old boy, who was popular, athletic, he had no behavioral issues and no criminal past. However the Ontario police did not take time to consider the fact that Steven Truscott was just a normal teenage boy, instead they jumped to conclusions and prosecuted

For McClain’s defense, he referred to the case of Cooper v. State in 1999. In this case, a similar scenario occurred when an 18–year-old was found guilty of murder; however, he did not receive the death sentence. The Justices argued that in the case of Cooper, there were two mitigating factors, that Cooper had just turned 18 and there was extensive testimony about the abuse that Cooper had received throughout his life, both of which are not in play here. McClain argued that Phillips was only 18 and 5 months of age when the crime occurred, making that a mitigating factor. He is currently the youngest person on death row. Additionally, Phillips had an I.Q. of 76, which is borderline, as an individual with an I.Q. of 70 has mental retardation. According to his school records, he was also in special education classes and had a speech impediment. Does this