Perry vs. New Hampshire: Case Brief

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

1. The first issue is whether the trial court erred in denying Greer's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Austin's will contest was barred by T.C.A. § 32-4-108 (Supp. 1991).

Investigator Sam Reilly will also be called to testify, in that he was the first investigator on the scene. Shortly after the murder, Officer Reilly went to the defendant’s home at 2435 Damen Street, apt #2B and forced down Mr. John Hudsons’ and Dale Buckner’s door. While at the apartment, Officer Reilly Recovered a .38 revolver (matching the gun from the crime scene), a black leather jacket, and a newly registered Black Cadillac Sedan; which matched the description of the getaway car. Due to officer Reilly’s work, pertinent details of the defendant’s background and belongings have been brought to trial and will help us prove that the defendants did, beyond a reasonable doubt murder, and assist in murdering Mrs. Sara Lazar. Upon arrest, the defendant’s both refused to make a statement concerning the killing of Mrs. Lazar.

Perry was attentive to “17 Edition of The Kansas City Star.” Perry was shocked at the fact that the crime he had

II. “Judge Pirtle should recuse himself from presiding in this case, because the State intends to call Judge Pirtle as a witness, concerning the qualifications and credibility of Dr. Ralph Erdmann, the pathologist who performed the autopsy in this capital murder case.” (http://www.goextranet.net/Seminars/Examples/Disqualify/State%27sRecuseJudge.htm)

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

Legal Claim: State of New Hampshire (Superior court) questioned whether certain laws applied to the specific facts of Etzweiler’s case. Ralph Bailey was indicted for manslaughter and Mark Etzweiler was indicted for negligent homicide after the fatal accident involving bailey had occurred.

This assignment is meant to explore the landmark Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. It is the purpose of the essay to examine the facts of the controversy, the arguments offered by the petitioner, and discuss as well the Supreme Court's ruling and its possible impact on precedent. The analysis will conclude with my commentary and opinion in regard to the Mapp decision.

The case against Patsy Kelly Jarrett, was for murder and robbery that took place at a gas station in New York. The events that took place involved a young boy who was just seventeen named Paul David Hatch, who was the victim. Patsy was arrested because her car was at the crime scene and the man she was with committed the crimes, and an eye witness claimed to have seen two suspects in the car. This statement is the reason why Patsy was arrested.

In the past decade, eyewitness testimonies have cast a shadow on what is wrong with the justice system in today’s society. Before we had the advanced technology, we have today, eyewitness testimonies were solid cold-hard facts when it came to proving the defendant was guilty. However, time has changed and eyewitness testimonies have proven to be the leading causes of wrongful convictions due to misidentification. The Thompson and Cotton case is a perfect example of how eyewitness testimonies can put an innocent man behind bars.

On Friday, November 20, 2015, I witnessed the case against Thomas Adam L, charging the defendant with two counts of robbery in the second degree and one count of robbery in the third degree, heard by Hon. Thomas E. Moran in the Monroe Supreme & County Court Criminal Division. The case began around 9:30 am where both attorneys began calling witnesses to the stand to testify whether or not they knew Thomas and if the witness could make out the way he walked and decide whether or not the man in several video clips shown was Thomas. The video clips produced by the prosecutor were clips from Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGTA) showing multiple angles of the suspect in questioning walking by the bus towards

Eyewitness identification, for the most part, is considered reliable eyewitness identification by the courts as excellent evidence to proof crimes at trial. Yet, Bennett Barbour’s arrest revealed these inaccuracies as he was wrongly arrested due to an over-reliance on eyewitness identification. Barbour’s physique, specifically his

That man goes by the name of Ronald Wilson, who “was charged with capital murder” (Marion) under the case of “Wilson V. State”. This man reported a crime to the local police and was sent in for questioning under the suspicion

The defendant also offered that since many drivers do not stop at all at an uncontested stop, the officer may have not had

According to authorities, the 38-year-old defendant smashed her vehicle into another car near the intersection of Del Prado Boulevard and Hancock Bridge Parkway in Cape Coral. The driver of the other car, a 61-year-old man, then jumped out and began taking photos of the defendant and her license plate. She attempted to drive away, but the man tried to stop her by grabbing her steering wheel. The car then dragged him approximately 50 feet.