Old Chief V. US Supreme Court Case Study

This is not an easy paragraph to satisfy. The showing that must be made before the motion will be granted under this provision is that the evidence is not only “newly-discovered”, but that it is evidence of such quality that it will “probably”, not merely “possibly”, change the result in the case. And the movant should also show why, with reasonable diligence, the evidence could not have been discovered in time for the trial, or at least in time to move for a new trial under CPLR 4404. (The time for the post-trial motion is tight. See CPLR 4405 and the Commentary on it.)

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

Therefore, suppressed the self-incriminating statements in Williams following trial but under the independent source doctrine still admitted the fruit of the poisonous tree evidence such as the body’s location and conditions. The Supreme Court said that the evidence would’ve been discovered in a short period of without the police officer’s interrogation, didn’t infringe William’s Sixth Amendment rights and highlighted that the rule was already in standard practice by most state and federal courts. The Court also stated that the state didn’t have to prove “good faith” in order for evidence to be admissible and used Wong Suns court case as it’s backbone. William again was convicted of first degree murder.

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

The Exclusionary rule requires that any evidence taken into custody be obtained by police using methods that violates an individual constitutional rights must be excluded from use in a criminal prosecution against that individual. This rule is judicially imposed and arose relatively recently in the development of the U.S. legal system. Under the common law, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect its admission in court. Any evidence, however obtained, was admitted as long as it satisfied other evidentiary criteria for admissibility, such as relevance and trustworthiness. The exclusionary rule was developed in 1914 and applied to the case of Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, and was limited to a prohibition on the use

The Woburn case was problematic from the start. Initially, Cheeseman, representing the defendant, filed for Rule 56 to illustrate that there was no possible way plaintiff, represented by Schlichtmann, could prove their case, meaning there was no way for the defendant to be held responsible. In doing so, he did not deny

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

Kulbicki’s file stayed in the state court until 2006, when Kulbicki added an additional claim that his defense attorneys did not adequately question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence presented by the CBLA. Kulbucki lost in the state courts and then appealed to the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The Court of Appeals then vacated Kulbucki’s conviction based on the fact that Kulbucki’s attorneys did not question the legitimacy of the ballistics evidence, thus the defense attorneys did not provide Kulbucki with effective assistance during the trial. However, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a per curiam opnion, that the Court of Appeals based the decision to vacate Kulbicki’s conviction on contemporary views of ballistic evidence. Since there was no reason for counsel to investigate the validity of the ballistic evidence in 1995, the attorneys provided effective assistance to Kulbicki because effective assistance did not require attorneys to verify the legitimacy of the ballistic evidence (Maryland v. Kulbicki, 136 S. Ct. 2

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

In its brief, the government asserted that the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction “does not turn on the content of jury instructions.” Rather, the sufficiency of the evidence standard is made with reference to an accurate understanding of the elements required for a conviction. As such, a conviction should be upheld if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” At the federal level, these elements are defined by Congress, meaning that an erroneous jury instruction should have “no effect on sufficiency analysis.” Thus, the government contended that its failure to object to an erroneous jury instruction should not have any impact on whether the elements as defined by Congress supported a finding of guilt.

3. Although it does not state the outcome of the case it does state that the judge ordered trial

Griggs, the defendant, then decided to appeal to the courts, claiming they erred by rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, determining the child witnesses were competent to testify , admitting hearsay testimony from various witnesses, denying his request for a continuance, and admitting evidence under W.R.E. 404(b). The Supreme Court responded by affirming, holding “(1) the district court did not err by (i) rejecting Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, (ii) determining that the child witnesses were competent to testify, (iii) denying Defendant’s requests for continuances, and (iv) admitting other bad acts evidence under Wyo. R. Evid. 404(b); (2) the district court erred in allowing the admission of some hearsay testimony at trial, but the errors were harmless; and (3) Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial was not

Further, he argued that the third statement was admissible to rebut the Crown’s allegation of recent fabrication. The court accepted the first submission and ordered a new trial. The court ruled that edited portions of those statements bearing upon the appellant’s state of mind were properly admissible as an exception to the rule against the admissibility of prior consistent statements. This court rejected the second argument on the ground that the Crown had not alleged recent fabrication. The appellant submits that the trial judge failed to put the defense position on automatism fairly before the jury telling to be sceptical of the defense, also mischaracterizing the evidence of Dr.kolito and failing to instruct the jury that the absence of motive had a bearing on the defense of

On review in the appellate court, after the trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment for the defendant, were three testimonies submitted by the defendant. Id. at *2. The court held that the testimonies did not sufficiently establish the appropriate standard of care because while each testimony stated the applicable standard of care, none of them stated how the standard was or was not met. Id. at *9. In addition, the plaintiff submitted expert testimony by a veterinarian who stated,

(E. 2243-44). The Circuit Court found—and WCS concurs—that this position “pushed the envelope of credibility.” (E. 2284).