Outweighs Its Prejudicial Effect On People V. Albarran Essay

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), “the jury found Hurtado guilty of murder of Jose Stuardo at his trial and trial court sentence Hurtado to death” (Ingram p. 48). After the verdict was read, Hurtado through his defending attorney contest that the verdict was invalid because Hurtado under the Fifth Amendment has a right to a grand jury trial. However, the Supreme Court rejected Hurtado’s defense argument. Therefore, in this essay I am going to discuss the reason the Court decided the case the way it did and if the right to a grand jury indictment an essential of due process.

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for driving with expired license plates. Once pulled over for operating the vehicle without valid registration, the officer discovered that Riley also had a suspended license. Following police policy for suspended licenses, the officer impounded Riley’s car. At that point another officer performed a mandatory inventory search of the car that led to the discovery of two handguns under the hood of the vehicle. Police proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of loaded firearms. The arresting officer also found and seized a cell phone in Riley’s possession along with items associated with the “Bloods” street gang. Photographs and videos accessed on the cell phone connected Riley to the

On top of the racism faced in the courtroom was the media bias against the Mexican American population. In the process of covering events in the city, the then Hearst-owned papers did a series of articles on the pachuco gangs, depicting Mexican American neighborhoods as being fraught with violence, places of raping and pillaging (Tobar, 1997).

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

Thus, the court determined that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:961, 40:962 could have no application in the prosecution of a person for the mere status or condition that might possibly arise unintentionally or involuntary. The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the judgment that revoked the suspension of two concurrent 10-year sentences for violating the conditions of his probation.

Not overruling and thus strengthening previous rules, promotes certainty, predictability and consistency. As stated in Lawrence v. Texas overruling can bring upon an unjustifiable result under principles of Stare Decisis and seriously weaken the court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the supreme court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law (Lawrence).

Mr. Aaron Jackson was placed under arrest and charged with illegal possession of the firearm. It was later discovered that the state of Newtown, a place located near New Setonia and where Mr. Jackson lives, had a similar statute. This statute stated the trucks defined in the New Setonia’s law is actually commercial vehicles. Mr. Jackson asked for a motion to suppress the evidence seized from the car. First, the trial court denied this motion, and Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty. Mr. Jackson appealed for a motion to suppress once again, which was denied because it was stated how Officer Raymond’s initial stop was reasonable under the New Setonia law. When Mr. Jackson made yet another appeal, the Court of Appeals decided to hear the case. Now, the question lingering is whether Officer Raymond stopping the Defendant for violating the New Setonia’s statute is

The Supreme Court clarified their requirement of positional predisposition in Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). The court ruled that in addition to the defendant’s state of mind,

“In Barker v. Wingo, the Court stressed the legitimate reasons for the 16 trial continuances. But is there a danger that prosecutors might illegitimately seek continuances?”

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

John Perry Barlow once said, “Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonwealth, our governance will emerge.” To me this quote means that race is an imaginary thing, and that there are no physical differences between any two people who are of different race. The only thing that is different between the two people is what they have learned, what they accomplished and what their interests are as individuals. Throughout history the issues between race, gender, and religion have always been seen as a social issue that has created great conflict between people. This topic is prevalent in Toni Morrison’s novel, A Mercy, which is

For the second case Lewis v. Avery (1971) compare with our case, both are also have the unilateral mistake. But the case Lewis v. Avery cannot be voided as it cannot show the importance