R V. Morin Case Study

Rinaker vs Superior Court case is a juvenile delinquency proceeding minors, Christopher G. and Huy D, are charged with committing vandalism. Minors were allegedly convicted with throwing rocks at Arsenio Torres’s car. Torres later brought a civil harassment case against the minors, which began the process of mediation in an effort to resolve the civil harassment action.

As questioning continued, she was asked about specific crimes that she had been accused of committing. After the testimony had been taken from

Twenty years later information surfaced that suggested that the evidence in the two previous trials had been tampered with. The Assistant District Attorney, with the help of Evers's widow, began compiling a new case. (Elliot Jr., pg.1)

For the purpose of this report, a visit to the Melbourne Magistrate's Court was made on 22nd March, 2016. On this day, the second day of a four day committal hearing was heard regarding the matter of Omer Cicekdag, presided over by Magistrate Ann Collins.

The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective

On June 9th 1959, a twelve year old girl by the name of Lynne Harper was walking around her neighbourhood until she encountered a young boy from school, Steven Truscott who gave her a bicycle ride home. Once he dropped her off home and went off, she was abducted, two days later her body was found, she had been raped and strangled. By the reason of several witnesses spotting Steven and Lynne together, the Ontario police wrongly convicted him for committing murder. Steven Truscott was a 14 year old boy, who was popular, athletic, he had no behavioral issues and no criminal past. However the Ontario police did not take time to consider the fact that Steven Truscott was just a normal teenage boy, instead they jumped to conclusions and prosecuted

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court denied a new trial as the ruling was final and be considered double jeopardy.

R v Grant is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on section 9, section 10, and section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court created a number of factors to consider when determining whether a person had been detained for the purpose of sections 9 and 10 of the

After reading the case study summary it can be seen that there are many problems with the investigation of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. This section focuses on how jailhouse informants were used in unethical way to get a conviction. Jailhouse informants were one of the main reasons as to why Ron and Dennis were convicted. Giannelli (2007) states, in his article that jailhouse informants should be removed from the courtroom due to their unreliability. There are many causes as to why jailhouse informants should be removed from testifying. The first, is credibility of the informant, as seen during the testimony jailhouse informant’s testimonies were fabricated. The key witness Terri Holland was going to face her third felony when she supposedly heard Ron Williamson confess of the crime. However, this testimony should have been challenged by the defense because she did not

The ‘Ken and Barbie’ murders are a fascination for many Canadians still to this day. Despite 20 years passing since the infamous murders occurred, there is still much debate surrounding the crimes that took place. In analyzing this crime, it can be found that there is still many grey areas to the serial murderers: Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka.

For example, just a week after the attack happened, a male witness came forward to police and said that they had arrested the wrong men (Northwestern). Paula was not released until thirty three years after she was imprisoned ever after a man had come forward just a week into the case. Secondly, they used Paula’s mental state against her. As said by For Justice, Paula's mental state was used by others to get her to falsely confess to a crime she never committed that also ruined the lives of four other men. These other men were all brought down because of their convenience and the police forces reliance on Paula’s incorrect testimony. Paula’s case was not the only case that was settled upon poor evidence, another example would be Keith Harward’s

In the case of 23-year-old next-door neighbor, Guy Paul Morin who was wrongfully convicted for the murder of Christine Jessop in 1984, which was a nine-year-old girl who lived in Queensville, Ontario. On October 3, 1984 Christine Mother, Janet, arrived home at 4:10pm and noticed her daughter’s backpack in the kitchen but no sign of her Christine. Janet began to panic and looked around the neighborhood looking for her daughter and found nothing. Later that night she called the York Regional Police.

The R v Bentham case , which presented the question of imitation firearms, and whether part of your body is covered in the legislation adopted the literal approach and as this directive was employed judges declared the word ‘possession’ did not include someone’s fingers. If words of the act are evident, they should be adhered to, even if they provoke a distinctive absurdity. The legislation specified that imitation firearms could be “anything which has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or missile”. It was held by Lord Bingham that Parliament obviously meant to legislate about imitation firearms and not to develop an offence of dishonesty, claiming to possess a firearm. Accordingly, possession of something needs to be independent from the body and the defendant was found not guilty.

Mr. Reston is a man who have lost all of his appetite for life. No one was left in his life even his dog died. He was so depressed to the point that he wanted to die. Although, Mr.Reston medical condition was improving he still wanted to die. Even though,doctors are not allowed to agree with patents but Mr.Reston was in a complicated unique situation. His situation is different because he was really depressed and it could lead to psychic pain. As his doctor said that his patent who is Mr. Reston didn't want to live anymore so he wasn't sure if its fair to force him to live if he don't want

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”