Minnesota V. Riff Essay

(3) Sullivan kept bugging Chick Gandil to get Jackson involved and told him to offer $20,000. (1) Lefty Williams went to Joe Jackson’s hotel room one night to give Joe $5,000 in an envelope. (2) Joe refused to accept it and after an argument left his own room. Lefty threw the envelope in the room and left. This was huge in the trial because Joe claimed to never have never have accepted the envelope and Lefty said that he just left it in the room after the argument and that Joe had never accepted it. Because Williams wouldn’t have gained anything from lying for Joe we should believe their testimonies. (2)

The defense's opening statement should have attacked the evidence that the state provided, and also attacked McGlothlin's credibility. The defense's opening statement should have consisted of a description of the friendly relationship that existed between Roger Coleman and the McCoys. It also should have also included Coleman's alibi--Philip VanDyke--and the fact that VanDyke's time card reinforces the time that he said he was with Coleman and the time that he clocked into his job. Arey and Jordan also had an opportunity to smear McGlothlin's credibility by referring to evidence that he failed to mention in his opening argument--the pry mark on the door, the broken fingernails on the victim but no scratches on Coleman, and that the substance found on the victim was soil, not coal dust, which had been on Coleman's clothes. The defense counsel didn't refer to any of those facts. No scientific evidence was brought up, and it failed to respond to McGlothin's statement that there was evidence that Coleman had in fact admitted to committing the crime. The opening statement was a complete

1 and spit on Victim No. 2. So the question to the puzzle is who’s who; now you’re going back to the first page of the report to find out. Another problem is placing a label in front of a name; only adding unnecessary wording and needless work. For example, there’s no need to say Suspect Lynn told Victim Cole to, shut up or I’ll punch you again. State, "Lynn told Cole to…" Once you’ve documented who participated and to who did what, refrain from using labels. This will make the readers’ and your job easier; document all the important facts. Rutledge suggests, “Don’t use labels if you can avoid it.”

Instruct students to elaborate one of the crimes. They are to take the role of a police officer that has interviewed witnesses. They are to use this information to complete a police report this week.

Tatro v. University of Minnesota refers to a case of the University of Minnesota bringing disciplinary action against a student for several Facebook posts. In 2009, Amanda Tatro was a junior at the University of Minnesota, enrolled in the mortuary science program taking a class with a lab working with cadavers. Since Tatro was working in a cadaver lab through the Anatomy Bequest Program, she had to sign a discloser form acknowledging that she understood and agreed to comply with the program rules, as well as “additional laboratory policies” stated in the course syllabus. Additional laboratory policies being, “the course syllabus for the anatomy lab included rules ‘set up to promote respect for the cadaver.’ The anatomy lab rules allowed ‘respectful and discreet’ ‘conversational language of cadaver dissection outside the laboratory,’ but prohibited ‘blogging’ about the anatomy lab or cadaver dissection” (Tatro v. University of Minnesota, 2012).

The human brain is a remarkably intricate organ. Therefore, simple mutations in its complexity can result in devastating conditions leading to acts of violence. Kinkel, a fifteen-year-old boy, demonstrates his partaking in the unnecessary murders of both his parents and innocent bystanders. Kinkel is said to have shown signs of his intentions through inconspicuous matters. Later holding the guilt of four deaths and twenty-six attempts via semi-automatic weaponry (para. 5). The mental instability of the subject is proven to be in effect, and a suitable cause for these behaviors. The document in question is “The State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel”, in which encompasses a trial the young boy capable of murder. Kinkel is convicted of the absolute minimal sentence for the nature of his crimes, followed by his seemly confession. The defense and prosecution contemplate proper arguments given the defendants substantial witnesses to the crimes and articles of law. Justice is debated among the courts and how to satisfy these reprimands. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the higher courts decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

In light of these legal changes, officers needed to construct their domestic violence cases under the assumption that the victim would not be participating in the prosecution. The case commenced at the time the call was received by dispatch up until the case was presented to a judge or jury. Therefore, officers needed to complete the proper procedures to secure recordings of the calls made to the 911 dispatch center to report the domestic situation. In addition to having the subject, victim and/or witnesses complete written and/or video statements, the officer must diligently identify, collect, and photograph evidence at the crime scene (Ellison, 2002). This required officers to visit the victim several days later to photograph bruising, because some bruising

The issues the court must decide are whether withholding Miranda Warnings to obtain a confession is considered admissible in court. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, Ms. Seibert was questioned before her

SUMMARY OF FACTS: Two armed men rob a bank in Alhambra, CA. One of defendant steals money, holds a women teller hostage and shoots at a police officer severely wounding him. The second defendant is offered money by one of the robbers to steal a white automobile as the “getaway car” for the robbery. The police takes the defendants into custody. One of the defendant’s statement was used as evidence.

The pickup truck’s owner arrived, the defendant got his keys, told him to sit in the truck, and gave him beer. He then got back under the truck to wait some more. Passerby’s alerted the police who arrested the defendant. He also testified that while waiting for his friend, he started sobering up and thinking things over. He removed the bullets from the gun and put them in his pocket, and made plans to have a party at his house with the people in the pickup. They were drinking and conversing when the police arrived.

The written statements you obtained covered only the basic details of the case. These statements did not provide enough information to meet the elements of the crime. The victim’s statement did not provide when the “no contact” order was issued, time the offense occurred or who were the witnesses. The witness statements also lacked many details that could have helped with this case. After reading the statements that were provided, you should have either conducted an audio statement or conducted a question and answer written statement to establish the elements of the crime. This would have provided more information and made for a stronger

If the witness denies making the inconsistent statement, the federal rules allow other evidence to be offered to prove it if:

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Discuss the three primary sources of information for criminal investigators and provide detailed practical examples of each source listed.

There will be a court report who will create a transcript of your deposition. In order to create an accurate transcript, the court reporter needs only one person to speak at a time.