Locked Doors Are Not Guilty

A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?

There were several trials held throughout the case of the Scottsboro Boys. Most of them were unfair and obviously conducted with the odds stacked against the boys. The testimonies given by the two girls often did not match up. Victoria Price spent the most time on the stand, and on the rare occasion that Ruby Bates testified, most of what she said was disregarded because it contradicted or changed Price’s story. It was concluded that anything Bates said was no good because she was dimwitted and could not keep her story straight.

Max Blanck and Isaac Harris are not guilty and there is strong evidence to prove this. The first piece of evidence that lead to my verdict was that the girls couldn’t get out because the doors were jammed, not locked. Many of the workers state that they never locked the doors because Blanck and Harris had workers come in and out of the rooms to get materials. If the workers came in and out, the doors couldn’t have been locked. Another piece of evidence is that the doors were jammed because the doors were made out of steel and when steel is exposed to heat it causes the doors to expand. The girls also may have not been able to open the doors because they were so scared they probably weren’t pushing hard enough. In the moment the workers probably

The state of Oregon intends to prove that Ms. Jammer was in possession of a burglar’s tool on August 20, 2009, where she was convicted of burglary under the first degree. Burglary in the first degree states that a person commits the crime of burglary if the person violates entering in a building with the intent to commit a crime, which falls under Oregon’s Title 16: “ Crimes & Punishment.” Approximately around 11:30 p.m. Ms. Jammer was walking in downtown Eugene when she stopped in front of Buy & Sell, a store that sells new and used musical and electronic equipment. She stopped because she saw a guitar that she had been saving up for. She noticed that the doors had only one lock and she claims that she tried to open the door for fun. In

The main focus of this article is to investigate whether the new lock out laws decreased the amount of assaults in the Kings Cross and Sydney CBD Entertainment areas and if the occurrence of the assault has risen around clubs more distant from these areas, and if proof of movement of venues leads to the lessening in assaults in the Kings Cross and Sydney CBD Entertainment zones substantial than the rise in the amount of assaults in the displacement precincts. This article will be used as my main source because it talks about the affect the lock out law has caused on assaults around Kings Cross and Sydney CBD areas and how assaults have been reduced due to the lock out law. This source is very reliable to use in my essay because it is from

First things first, I ask you, members of the jury, to think back to the whole tragic story. As you already heard from my colleague Alejandro in the beginning, our victim was a waitress at Truck Stop Café. After

When they were being questioned they agreed that they were read their rights and the officer asked if they knew what they were in there for. They agreed they did because they thought they were in there for stealing a can of tuna. The officer never made them aware that they were actually in there for the murder of the owner of the convenience

To me the Defense team had the most credible evidence. For example, the defence team had a referral saying Red Chief had a rope and tied a student to the bathroom door. Now the story they were going with made sense with that evidence because they said that Red Chief tied up Bill “Old Hank” so it made it more convincible that Red Chief was guilty. Even though the prosecution team won I still believe that the defence team was right because their story added up better. Also i think that the defence team had more evidence to prove their case. Therefore the defence had better evidence and should have won.

These points together could and was found by a jury to be under Maine law, to be false imprisonment, the defendant unlawfully acted to intentionally cause confinement or restraint of the victim within a bounded area. Wal-Mart employees did use physical barriers, threating actions and did not have legal authority to

*Under school district drug-testing policies, athletes and students participating in extracurricular activities can be subjected to drug tests without individualized suspicion.

The most prominent controversy surrounds the management of the company. The fact that they locked the women in the building just before it burned raises multiple questions. First, many question whether those managers planned, or even caused the fire. The controversy within this mass murder controversy is the question of whether this was a simple case of greed. After all, the women who lost their lives had previously requested better wages and working

The trial finished its case with the testimony of two girls who claimed to have overheard Damien confess to the murders while attending a softball game. The following afternoon jurors returned to the courtroom with their verdict. The jury found both defendants, Damien and Jason, guilty of murder in the counts of all three boys. Jesse was found guilty of first-degree murder for all three boys as well. (Kaytee)

Calvin should not win the lawsuit this was a worst an honest mistake. From the moment Cavin entered the store Sara could tell he was out of place. With the way he dressed it was obvious that he couldn’t afford the clothes in the department store. Sara continued to watch him until Calvin took an expensive pair of jeans into the dressing room. Being the only sales person around, she was concerned that if she did not detain him until a security guard was present that if Calvin put on the jeans and left the store then she would not be able to stop him. The detention was completely justified under the circumstances to avoid a potential catastrophe where Sara could have been injured. Also, just because Calvin had money on him, does not mean he wasn’t

Within the courtroom many individuals have pleaded guilty because they know in the back of their minds that the chances of the jury believing them over a Law Enforcement officer is slim to none. seriously, who are you to likely to believe? A person in a prison jumpsuit or a professionally dressed and groomed officer who swore to god to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. looking back with over a hundred of cases where officers lied, do you really believe police are necessarily more trustworthy than any criminal? In my opinion I don't think so. It's not the fact that police are inclined to confabulate, but I think they do have the incentive to lie. In todays society where numbers of those incarcerated is enormous, police should not be

Even though they called a lot more of objections and yelled out they still are the better choice than the prosecutors because the defense showed us how Bill and Sam caused no harm to Red Chief and protected him from the escapees (Bill Protected him) and also because the prosecutors kept saying the same thing over and over, but the defense had something new every time. And I voted not guilty because Red Chief followed Bill and Sam and had the most fun he's ever had because his father never has time for him. Even though the prosecutors won the case the defense had the most credible evidence. I would have to say they both used the same amount