Prosecutor Case Study

I feel that this case was somewhat representative of what was discussed in the textbook. The forensics aspects of this case were generally different from the impression of forensics I received from reading the textbook. Despite this fact, I feel that the investigative techniques of this case were similar to what was discussed in the textbook, as well as what has been discussed during lecture.

Facts of the Case: On March 17, 1980, a 14 year-old student and her classmate in Piscataway Township High School had gotten caught smoking cigarettes in the public school bathroom by a teacher. This violated the school rule. The teacher took them to Theodore Choplick, the assistant principal’s office. The assistant principal then questioned girls about smoking in the bathroom. One girl admitted to smoking. However, one female denied that they had been smoking at all. The assistant principal requested that he look into the student’s purse. He then found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, substantial amounts of

The family has been determined indigent for services. Samkisha has received public defender services for her criminal matters and Mrs. Beale has received Medicaid since she was 16 years of age. Mrs. Beale disclosed she is court ordered to receive child support in the amount of $202 per month from Mr. Robinson for Samkisha, but stated he seldom make payments of such. She also reported she receives unemployment in the amount of $204 per week and Social Security Income (SSI) for Samkisha in the amount of $670 per month.

Lago Vista Independent School Distict. Gebser and her teacher had a sexual relationship that lasted for almost 2 years. The two were caught in the middle of having relations. The teacher was arrested by the local police department and his license were revoked by the state. Gebser never notified administrators or staff about the relationship between her and the teacher. Her parents tried to file a case on the school district for damages and monetary payment. The court ruled in favor of the school district. This case was very interesting and unique in many ways. I support the decision of the court on no to reward the victim monetary payment. Gebser never tried to notify anyone about the situation, it was more so enjoyment for her. This school district was very proactive and moved very quickly after finding out the

Prosecutorial Discretion comes from the Bordenkircher v Hayes (1978) case. The Supreme Court ruled “ so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury, generally rests entirely in his discretion.” (Whitebread, Slobogin, 2008, p591) Some states require the prosecution to give them a detailed written reason as to why they chose to dismiss a case. In most cases, the prosecutor has absolute authority and are rarely challenged. Similar to most government officials, prosecutors also have both legislative and administrative restrictions.

The school officials did not have enough sufficient evidence that they needed to conduct a full strip search to search as far as her underwear. There was not any evidence that told the administration that she would be hiding drugs in her clothes. However, the school administration are no held “personally liable” because the laws were not “clearly established” to show that it violated the students right yet the court decided that it did.

Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does Search and Seizure relate to the B.I.G. case?

A: Standing to sue is the requirement that plaintiffs who sue must have a serious and vetted interest in a case, meaning the plaintiff has sustained or is in danger of sustaining a direct and substantial injury from the actions of the other(which can be the government)

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion to admit evidence of prior uncharged incidents of domestic violence, because the evidence denied Mr. Davis of his rights to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution, in that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative because it was too remote in time to be relevant to the charged crimes and had a prejudicial effect.

Now comes the Defendant, Joseph Bettina, files this Motion For temporary Support and would shows:

Adnan does deserve a retrial; a retrial would allow all of the evidence to be brought up again, and a new trial would occur. The investigation would be looked at again, the witnesses, and community members would be contacted again. This retrial would be a fresh start. However, the chances of Adnan getting a retrial are slim. The Fifth Amendment does protect people from double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is being tried for the same case twice; the amendment states that there will not be another trial for the same case, unless new evidence has come up. In Adnan’s case, there hasn’t been any new evidence, and too much time has passed that the old evidence is gone, the witnesses’ memory of the time period are no longer reliable, Adnan has lost touch

1) The Court said that the picketing pertained to a matter of public concern because their signs were stating issues regarding the moral conduct of the U.S. as a whole and the fate of these moral judgements. The Court stated that Phelps and his followers were speaking on matters of public concern on public property and therefore was entitled to the protection under the First Amendment.

Per the order received, the court suspended this case effective 1/11/17, with the NCP order to pay $350.00 per month on arrearage owed as of the suspension date.Fiscal reviewed case accounts; case overcharged by six months at the rate of $449.00 per month. . Therefore, the WC account balance was adjusted to $0.00 and the WA account balance was adjusted to $17,215.13. Caseworker A. Brant submitted the fiscal request.

Today (February 4th, 2016), I was placed in Courtroom 4C of the courthouse and instructed to sit-in and observe every case brought forward to the judge today. I have to say, some of the cases I heard about today were not your real average day cases. One thing one of my supervisors; Vinny, told me to look out for was the the college/high school students who got in trouble for underage possession because they stick-out like a sore thumb in the courthouse. He said you can tell which ones they are based on the way they are dressed and how nervous they look when they are sitting and waiting for their case to be heard. Vin was not wrong, once the room was open for people to come in, I saw a group of 5-6 college-age students walk in very well dressed and most of them came in with one or two parents next to them. Throughout the day, some of the cases brought forward to the judge

Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence