Prosecutor Case Study

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.

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.

Defendants base their Section 2-619 motion to dismiss on Section 2-201 and 2-109 of the Tort Immunity Act, which immunizes public employees from liability where the injury claimed is the result of a "discretionary policy determination."Hascall v. Williams, 2013 IL App (4th) 121131, ¶ 23. A "determination of policy" are those decisions that require the governmental entity or employee to balance competing interests and to make a judgment call as to what solutions will best serve each of those interests. Id. However, although the Defendants may have made a discretionary policy determination, Illinois courts have held that public entities still have a duty to maintain public property in a reasonably safe condition for intended and permitted users.

For example an individual is involved in a dispute with another individual and as the first individual beings to walk away and the second individual pulls out a knife and some how or another the first individual stabs the second individual the first individual could use the necessity defense.

Zion first became involved in the justice system at age 14. His legal history includes two intake contacts. Zion has had an intake contact for a felony offense. None of the intake contacts was for felony offenses against another person. He has no history of escape. He has had three juvenile detention confinements. On May 18, 2017, Zion was released from detention to the custody of his guardian and was ordered on electronic monitoring.

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?

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.

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)

I am interested in the Criminal Defense Investigator’s position that was presented on the U.S. Courts website. Enclosed you will observe a copy of my resume. I have been employed by the State of Maryland for 13 years in which 7 years I’ve worked with The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Parole and Probation’s Drinking Driver Monitor Program as a Monitor II. I am a highly motivated and skilled probation officer who graciously handles and resolves challenging probationer’s issues. I am driven to consistently provide exceptional support to the individuals that are under my supervision.

On 08/22/2017 Adrian and his siblings were returned back home of parent, however Adrian was returned under the condition that his parents find suitable placement for Adrian to live. Since Adrian was ordered home of parent, parents have attempted to place Adrian with different relatives, however his stay is only limited in their homes, as the relatives express that they are unable to look after Adrian because they work full time., and Adrian’s behavior are out of control. Family members fear the consequences of caring for Adrian due to his behaviors, and gang affiliation. Adrian has been residing in different family member’s homes, and most recently his parents Mr. and Mrs. Perez are not able to provide CSW

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

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

I think that the trial went good,i think that the defensive side had the most credible evidence.The defensive side won the case,i also think that the defensive side used or presented more evidence because they had more things to use against bill and sam and bill,sam,or the prosecutors didn't have enough evidence to prove that red chief was really the one who was doing the kidnapping.i think the verdict was fair because i think that the jury voted fairly,and based their votes or opinion on how they really felt or how they looked at the situation.

Defendants Distinctive Properties, Inc., PacShore, Inc., Robert Hamzey and Marie Hamzey (“Defendants”), answer the First Amended Complaint of Michael A. Cady as follows:

Should the FBI have the right to break the 4th amendment in order to solve criminal cases? Author Conor Friedersdorf claims in his article “Law Enforcement Crying Wolf About the Dangers of Locked Phones?” that if law enforcement pushes to break the 4th amendment it will become a threat to the American people rather than the criminals themselves, because it leaves us with less secure devices and it won’t dramatically make changes in solving cases. Although, I do agree with Friedersdorf claim about how this poses a threat to americans rather than criminals, but I do think that he should of provided more credible examples of how law enforcement is still able to solve cases through other means without the need to encrypting phones.