In People v. Young (1962), Young was convicted of assault in the third degree for assaulting two undercover officers. This is because he thought he was coming to defense of a “innocent”, African American, 18 year old who was being beat. For someone to be guilty of third degree murder “the defendant has to voluntarily intend to commit the unlawful act of touching” (People v. Young, p. 1). It is true that by definition Young is guilty of a crime. However, based off of the circumstances and his intentions, I do not believe he should have been charged or found guilty for any crime.
Some officers have a duty to go undercover and their protection should always be noticed by the court, however, Young's actions were not done in malice or done to harm
…show more content…
378). Duff explains this by saying that a person must be held liable what they intended to do which is called the “intent principle”, however, a second principle must also be used to make judgements (p. 393). This principle is called the “belief principle”. The belief principle states that “we must judge [someone] on the basis of what they believed they were doing, not on the basis of actual facts and circumstances which were not known to them at the time” (Duff, p. 393). Therefore, Young should not be charged because he was unaware of the fact that the 18 year old was a criminal, that the people he perceived to be bad were the police, and that he was committing a crime. He simply believed that he was defending a helpless African American teenager who was being beaten. Therefore, he should not be charged with third degree assault, a FELONY, for something that he would have never done if he knew otherwise. Therefore, we should follow Froessal’s statement that “criminal intent requires an awareness of wrongdoing. When conduct is based upon mistake of fact…there can be no such awareness and, therefore, no criminal culpability” (p.
Walter Calvin White (defendant) had а issue with William Tipton. Defendant knew that he's going to meet the Tipton, he carried a gun. When they had a disagreement, White pulled out his gun, after that Tipton started to run away on his motocycle. Defendant made a shot in order to harm Tipton, but actually hit Ralph Edward Davis (plaintiff) in the stomach. Defendant was sentenced to 5 years in prison. The Circuit Court awarded Davis a $50,000. White then filed for bankruptcy, after that, Davis went to the Court for nondischargeability in bankruptcy.
The first witness who will testify for the prosecution is Officer Bobby Flanegan. This witness will demonstrate that the warrantless search of the defendant’s apartment and backyard was proper. Officer Flanegan will also provide evidence to show that exigent circumstances were present, such as the possibility of a weapon in the possession of the defendant. For example, there was a possibility that gravity knife was in Kelly Robert’s possession at the corner of Chippewa and Franklin. Officer Flanegan will also provide evidence the seizure of the pills in the backyard were for the safety of the children in the daycare center next door. As shown, the hole in the fence that separated the daycare center’s property from that of Kelly Roberts’ demonstrated
Sophia Papa Jessie Williams Opinion Piece The case of The People v. Jessie Williams stands as a landmark case in the American Judicial system, and the lawfulness of the criminal justice system as we know it. Jessie Williams faced a particularly harsh sentencing of three and a half to seven years in prison for the assault of the defendant, Denise Moore, despite his claim of innocence. The outcome of this case left a lingering question on the effectiveness of the current American judicial system in actually delivering justice lawfully and certainly. There's a complex mix of factors that played key parts in the build of this case leading to Jessie's eventual incarceration, but did this sentence serve justice for either party, Denise Moore our victim, or Jessie Williams our
I then spoke with Washington. I asked Washington what had happened. Washington said two juvenile males came and knocked on her apartment door at approximately 1500 hours today. Washington said she answered the door and spoke with the juvenile males.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case was a huge decision in the history of our country. Dred Scott was a slave who was owned by the Sanford family. The Sanford family moved Scott to a Wisconsin territory, where slavery was prohibited under the Missouri Compromise, where he lived for 4 years working on and off to raise money for him and his family’s freedom. Later on, the Sanford family moved him back to St. Louis where Scott tried to buy him and his family freedom but was denied by the Sanford family. Scott sued the Sanford’s and made a case that he and his family lived in a free area for an extended period of time making him legally free. The state court declared him free but the wages that Scott had were withheld by the Sanford family who then appealed the decision to make Scott free to the Missouri Court. The Missouri Court overturned the decision to make Scott free and ruled in favor of the Sanford’s. Scott then sued the Sanford’s again for physical abuse and the court would not rule on it because they said Scott was regarded as a slave in Missouri territory.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford case is one of the most important cases that have ever been tried in the United States of America and was heard in the Old Courthouse of St. Louis. This case that is usually known as the Dred Scott Decision was a ruling by the Supreme Court of America that African people imported into the country and detained as slaves were not protected by the U.S Constitution and could never be American citizens.
Why would the Indiana Attorney General wade into a United States Supreme Court case over the opening prayers said at town council meetings in western New York state?
New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.
In People v Smith, Ricky Franklin Smith pled guilty to breaking and entering and being a fourth offense habitual offender in a Michigan Courtroom. Smith was sentenced and he believed his sentence was harsh so he appealed his sentence to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Smith’s counsel argued Smith was “entitled to be resentenced because the presentence investigation report contained references to his juvenile criminal record which had been automatically expunged pursuant to former MCR 5.913.[5]” (People v Smith, 1991). In two previous cases, People v Price (1988) and People v Jones (1988), the Michigan Court of Appeals issued contradicting rulings regarding using juvenile records during sentencing.
I'm going to tell you about a new jersey case. About a 14 year old female who was caught smoking by a teacher and denied it. And whether or not the court finds her guilty or not. What her punishment is if she is found guilty.
“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is what comes to mind when we are in court or thinking about the constitution. That was not the case in the Dred Scott V. Sanford decision because Dred Scott was African American and a slave suing for his freedom. Dred Scott was an early, persistent steadfast, fighter for African American civil rights. “The Dred Scott decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Dred Scott forced the Supreme Court to fully articulate its stance on slavery; the results of which had long standing effects. His case in the Supreme Court brought heated opinions from both the North and the South regarding states’ rights and slave rights. Both sides had a huge debate both regarding the issue using very valid arguments towards the Dred Scott case.
To protect our citizen under the 14th Amendment with “without due process” and “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”, as well as the 6th Amendment, which the defendant in the case will have a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” The courts need to properly select its jury that is racially diverse. So how the court protect the people and select a fair and impartial jury?
The fact that the kid had no remorse shows that he did not feel bad about his violence act and would not hesitate to commit another violent crime. If a juvenile is old enough to commit a serious crime they are also old enough to understand what they did was wrong. Age is not reason enough to justify or dilute the intensity of crime committed. There must be strong actions taken for such violent crimes no matter the age.
The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States of America. With this title they have the final say about the decisions for the country. However the Supreme Court can make mistakes and have so before. The case considered the worst Supreme Court decision among many scholars is the Dred Scott V. Sanford case from the pre-civil war era. In which time slavery was a very hot topic between the states. In this case it was determined that a slave was not only not a citizen of the United States but also property (our documents). This court ruling made useless of the Missouri compromise of 1850 which made states above the 36°30’ line Free states and all below the line slaves states (History). This decision was eventually overturned by the Civil War amendments the 13th and 14th which stated that slavery is illegal in all states not only ones in rebellion and that all people born in the united states are citizens including people of color (our documents).
The Martin case brings up an interesting moral and legal dilemma. Although the young Martin withheld information that could have led to the arrest of Tammy’s killer as well as possible preventing her death. His reckless negligent actions would normally result in a felony charge as an adult but at the time of the crime he was not an adult. He was 13 years old and at the time of the crime and in 1990 when the crime was committed you could not waiver a child under the age of 14 and charge them as an adult. With there being no statute of limitations, then you legally have to charge him as a minor.