Notice To Defendant Summary

The Evaluation Form must be attached to your Project 3 submission. I will deduct .25 points if the Evaluation Form is not the first page of your submission. Please note that I deduct 2 points per day that a project is late.

Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U-Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler’s cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.

Case Significance: This case is important because it created the “inevitable discovery” and overall broadened the exceptions to the exclusionary rule. Evidence that would’ve been found through other legal measures are admissible. It’s a safety net, in the way that it doesn’t require courts to examine the constitutional infractions and rather focuses on increasing the probability of a

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

The Motion to Dismiss should be allowed because Stacey Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) conduct does not constitute expression and the Board of Education of the Town of Douglassville’s (“Douglassville”) dress code is constitutional. Nonverbal conduct constitutes expression when there is intent to convey a particularized message through the conduct, and that particularized message is likely to be understood by others. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410 (1974); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 401 (1989). In the present case, Plaintiff has established that she intended to convey a message of support for her friend, Fatima Ahmed, and the religion of Islam by wearing the

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.

On a consolidated appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed in part and remanded. (721 F2d 550) The court held that Loudermill and Donnelly had been deprived of due process and that their compelling private interest in retaining employment, combined with the value of presenting evidence prior to dismissal, outweighed the added administrative burden of a pretermination hearing. The court affirmed the district court’s

Maryland police officers pulled a vehicle over for speeding at approximately 3am on 7 August 1999. The police officers found three men in the vehicle. The driver was Donte Partlow, the front seat passenger and defendant Joseph Pringle, and the backseat passenger Otis Smith. One of the police officers asked the owner and driver of the vehicle for his license and registration. When Partlow opened the glove box, the police officer observed a large amount of money in the glove box. The police officer checked for outstanding warrants and issued Partlow a warning. Then the officer asked for permission to search his vehicle. Upon searching the vehicle the police officer found the money he had seen earlier as well as five baggies of cocaine in-between the armrest and back seat. All three occupants in the vehicle were questioned and denied any knowledge or ownership of the cocaine. Subsequently all three men were arrested and brought back to the police station for questioning. Pringle waived his rights after being given a Miranda warning and confessed that the cocaine was his and he intended to sell it. He claimed that the other occupants in the vehicle had no knowledge of the drugs. At trial, Pringle moved to suppress his confession, claiming that it was the result of an illegal arrest. The court denied his motion, and

When the attorneys told the judge of the appeal, he told them to return the next day to file it, but it was denied by the judge the next day, saying it was filed a day too late (“Shipp”). A writ of error was filed by Parden, and he asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to postpone Johnson’s execution, but they declined (“Shipp”). On March 7, Parden filed a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court, declaring that Johnson had been denied certain rights protected by the constitution, including due process and fair trial (Pfeifer, “Historic”; “Shipp”). At the federal district court hearing, the judge stated that the right to a fair trial stated in the 6th amendment didn’t apply to state trials, but the judge did move

The gathering, protection and safeguarding of evidence is a crucial facet of evidence integrity, without accurate adherence to these processes, vital evidence that could possibly have significant influence on a court case could be deemed inadmissible. Therefore identifies the importance in establishing policy and procedure for law enforcement agencies in the identification, collection, and storage of evidence. Objects that constitute fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of the crime or are contraband may be introduced in evidence and exhibited to the jury if it is proven that such objects offered as evidence relate to the crime charged (Garland, 2015, p. 417). Below is a procedure for handling physical evidence for presentation

The Federal District court denied this motion to suppress the block of methamphetamine and prosecuted Bond finding him guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, Bond challenged the judgment made on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence since it was a violation of his right under the Fourth Amendment and because as per the petitioner, Bond, the officer had manipulated the bag in a way that other passengers would not have. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument and affirmed the lower court’s

In determining the differences between a freestanding and gateway claim of actual innocence in habeas review, I will identify several factors that go into the courts procedures and verdict in deciding if the convicted petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. Some of these factors include the nature in which the petitioner is questioning their conviction, such as a constitutional error or new evidence surfacing. From that, I will explain how the court decides the standard of review in determining if the petitioner should be granted relief. Finally, I will explain which one of the two has a much higher chance of successfully being granted habeas relief.

This case provided a clear reason to conduct the traffic stop, Officer Stoddard, observed the actions of the driver and its passengers. He had a couple concerns; the vehicle which was commonly used for drug transportation, the driver and his demeanor, and the erratic driving that took place after they passed him. Officer Stoddard also testified that the defendant then attempted to avoid the Border checkpoint by turning down the last road possible before reaching the checkpoint. These particular actions brought about the reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. He followed the rules of his agency after conducting the stop, he was granted the permission to search the vehicle where he found then recovered the notated findings. Through

Plaintiff claims false arrest and malicious prosecution. Plaintiff states he was arrested for criminal possession of marijuana however no marijuana was recovered. PO Hernandez, PO Bonet, and PO Heredia were members of the anti-crime in PSA 6. Officers observed via Viper camera plaintiff and two other apprehended individuals smoking marijuana in the park behind a housing project. Officers approached plaintiff and two individuals and conducted a stop and frisk. Officers did not recover any contraband or marijuana was recovered. Plaintiff and the two individuals were transported to the precinct where a bag of marijuana was recovered during a search at the precinct. Officers could not determine ownership of the marijuana therefore all three were

In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants made a series of purchases on the following dates. On November 23rd, 2013, defendant Gonzalez attempted to buy cartons of cigarettes that totaled 128 dollars via counterfeit access devices. On March 6, 2016, Gonzalez and Pierre-Charles drove to a convenience store and bought items totaling 527.26 dollars via the counterfeit access device. Following, on March 20th the defendants Durandis and Gonzalez traveled to another convenience store in Berks County, Pennsylvania making a purchase that totaled roughly 1,915.73 dollars via the use of the access devices (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al, 2014). A week later, on March 27th it was discovered that within a vehicle driven by defendants Durandis and Charles it contained a fraudulent New York driver’s licenses, an expired Pennsylvania id card, 80 cartons of Newport cigarettes, and over 250 counterfeit access devices (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al,