Mr Johnstone Case Study

The defendant, Melyssa Baylor, qualifies as an accessory after the fact by concealing the perpetrator by allowing him to live at her house knowing that he has committed a felony, helping the perpetrator flee the scene by buying him a plane ticket, concealing physical evidence in her home like receipts, credit card statements of Terry Creighton, etc., and lying to the police and investigators about having any

The purpose of this report is to evaluate whether or not Alexander Lindsay Mcleod suffered a miscarriage of justice when convicted of attempted murder of his wife in 1964. This report will explore the role and responsibility of an investigator and the type of roles and responsibilities that are applicable to the case. It will also discuss the legal boundaries that an investigator has when at a crime scene and interviewing of suspects and witnesses applicable to the case.

Upon Bradford County Judge Maureen Beirne, reading the guilty verdicts, tears of relief were seen among the Englishes family and friends. "Were pleased to have this phase of the case over with. The cooperation efforts of the police and prosecution

Good evening, Judge Waring and people of the jury. You have been here for a long time; you have heard testimony after testimony on why my clients, John Conlan and Lorraine Jenson, are not to blame for Angelo Pignati’s death. The last testimony of the day is going to be mine. I know that you are going to go in that room and choose if they are guilty or not guilty. Let me outline my reasons, one last time clients John Conlan and Lorraine Jenson are innocent.

Camm was found guilty three times because the first two convictions had been dismissed. Camm’s guilty verdict was overturned after the state ruled that testimony about Camm’s extramarital affairs had unfairly biased the jurors (Lenz). This evidence suggests that the affairs should not be used as a motive to kill his family. There were a lot of arguments about bloodstain evidence found on Camm’s shirt. The prosecutor's case centered around tiny bloodstains found on the shirt Camm was wearing the night of the murders. Crime scene experts testified that the stains put him within feet of his child when she was shot. The defense attorneys disputed this by claiming that the blood stains could have gotten on the shirt when Camm found the bodies (Lenz). This evidence questions whether or not Camm shot his child. These were not the only issues in this

Good afternoon, your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I am Rebecca Li, one of the lead lawyers from the prosecution side. Today, we are charging John Conlan and Lorraine Jensen for contributing to the death of Angelos Pignati. (You honor, for the sake of the jury’s recognition, I will refer to the defendants with their first names. Is that alright with you?) So, Lorraine and John started going to Mr. Pignati’s house a few month before the death of the Mr. Pignati. However, they initially went as the “J&L fund” charity members; even after confessing to Mr. Pignati that they were not actually charity workers, they continued receiving goods from Mr.Pignati without any signs of payment in return. After a day of exhausting activities with

Common law placed parties to crime into four separate categories; Principals in the first degree: people who physically committed the criminal act, Principals in the second degree: people who are at the scene when the act occurred and provided assistance such as a getaway driver, Accessories before the fact: people who were not present when the act occurred, but provided support before it happened, Accessories after the fact: people who give assistance to the person who committed the crime after it has happened. All four categories would be given the same charge regardless of when your help was given. Additionally, all felonies were considered capital offences; as a result, accessories could not be tried until the principals were

The accused, Hugo McHale, is guilty of the wilful and premeditated murder of Peter Wilson. Through the analysis of McHale’s motive, means and opportunity, it will become clear that not only did McHale kill someone, but he had also intentionally set out to do so. Throughout the course of this arduous trial you have endured a relentless argument in defence of Hugo McHale, son of the late business magnate Henry McHale and accused murderer of former Altus Properties Chief of Staff, Peter Wilson. The defence have sculpted the seemingly perfect image of an emotionally vulnerable young man with diminished capacity, plagued by the unexpected death of his father. But what the defence

The accused person in the case is Robert Black Farmer, a 39 year old male who has had previous charges. Farmer has had trouble with the law ever since he was 15 years old and he has had over '26 convictions' which are for: 'armed robbery', 'theft' and 'assault' . By 1994 Farmer went to court and the judge stated "criminal record does not entitle him to any leniency" and he stole 6 cars , whilst being armed with a gun. The man that he robbed from ended up with 'severe eye injury'. Farmer has gone to jail for 5 years. Farmer had a girlfriend called Catharine Beverley, whether she is still with him is unknown. As well as having spent 5 years in jail he had to spend another 5 on supervision where he created a range of fake names and traveled to the United States. In the United States he was charged multiple times for many different reasons. Farmer went back to jail for 1 year and a half in the year 2004 for not recording that he owns weapons and their cartridge. He was once again fined but did not show up at court but the case went on even though he was absent (absentia is the term used in law). The charges that were brought against Robert Black Freeman for the case explored were: 'damaging Lauren Huxley's house with fire to threaten her life', 'attempted murder' and for 'detaining Huxley for advantage'. This case was brought to NSW Supreme court, which is located in Sydney, NSW. The court is supreme court and the judges name was

I agree. P. 143 says, “He was trying to convince himself that he wasn't guilty.” Since so many people are accusing him of being guilty all the evidence thrown against him he's starting to believe in it, but as much as he knows that he stumbled into it on accident, he should've just called the cops immediately knowing that their was a robbery happening.

Each party’s goals are pretty straightforward. Mr. Van Arnum and the additional homeowners he represented, have a process goal of ensuring they retain control of what they use to place their lawn debris in for trash collection, specifically plastic garbage bags. They internally rationalize their needs based upon several reasons. First, Mr. Van Arnum stated that requiring the homeowners to pay for additional containers to hold their collected lawn debris was in direct violation of Republic Services ‘unlimited’ service agreement with the homeowners that opted for the 95 gallon container. The homeowners interpreted of ‘unlimited’ service was they could place an unlimited amount of trash for collection on their regular scheduled service day for the set price of 1- 95 gallon collection. Furthermore, the additional containers were taxed which added another increase on their overall service cost. Second, Mr. Van Arnum felt the use of paper bags was not

On this date worker received a call from Mr. Tommy Elliott. He called to inform worker Mr. Duncan's father had left him some land and Mr. Duncan no longer wants to go into a nursing home. If someone is willing to move in with Mr. Duncan, can he come home? Worker stated he could come home if he had a place to come to and someone was willing to assist Mr. Duncan with his daily needs.

In the arrest of Guy Lancaster, there are questions as to whether the police have acted lawfully under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) in their treatment of Guy Lancaster and whether the Magistrates were right to refuse his bail application based on the background of his case.

“James McDermott, how do you plead to the double murder of Thomas Kinnear Esq. and his housekeeper, Nancy Montgomery on July 28, 1843?” the Judge’s nasal voice creaks over the courtroom.

The issue we emphasize on is how the judges' ruling might have been influenced differently had they based their assumptions solely on Whetmore being forced to play the game. Our colleague's posting reviews the points of view from which the judges argued their ruling. However, it misses to underline that, for each of the positions taken by the judges the testimony of the defendants was accepted as accurate. Nevertheless, the approach is relevant because it implies that circumstances in certain crime cases are questionable and thus difficult to address. But it fails to point that the judges never once considered the possibility of the defendants' false testimony. Either way, from where we stand, the defendants are definitely guilty of committing a crime. However,