R Vs Williams Case Study

All trial procedures in Canada are based on the adversarial system, this involves both the Crown and the defence. In our case R.v. Tisi since we were the Crown it was our job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (doubt based on reason and common sense) that the accused committed the offence. For someone to be convicted, actus reus (wrongful deed) and mens rea (guilty mind) to be present for the offence to be proven. In R.v.Tisi, Donovan Tisi was charged with robbery and assault causing bodily harm resulting in a summary conviction. In the Criminal Code, assault causing bodily harm is under section 267(a) is defined as “Everyone who in, committing an assault, (a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation thereof, or” Tisi was

* The trial court granted Austin's motion and directed a verdict on the grounds that Ms. Greer had not proved the proper execution of the codicil.

The judges conclude that Hasanie did not establish his case of having been dismissed without cause, or having been constructively dismissed.

Chick Gandil reported to Sullivan about the progress of recruiting his teammates. Sport Sullivan knew that he couldn't complete the fix without having Joe Jackson on his side. (3) Sullivan kept bugging Chick Gandil to get Jackson involved and told him to offer $20,000. (1) Lefty Williams went to Joe Jackson's hotel room one night to give Joe $5,000 in an envelope. (2) Joe refused to accept it and after an argument left his own room. Lefty threw the envelope in the room and left. This was huge in the trial because Joe claimed to never have never have accepted the envelope and Lefty said that he just left it in the room after the argument and that Joe had never accepted it. Because Williams wouldn't have gained anything from lying for Joe we should believe their testimonies. (2)

On December 24, 1968 a 10-year old girl named Pamela Powers was abducted from a YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa. Robert Williams, also a member of the YMCA and a recent escapee from a mental institution was observed a short time after the abduction carrying a large bundle of clothing to his vehicle. Mr. Williams asked a young boy to assist him in getting the door open and the boy saw what he described as two pale legs within the bundle of clothing. No one was able to further investigate what was inside of the bundle before Mr. Williams drove away. His abandoned vehicle was found the following day in Davenport, Iowa, approximately 160 miles away from Des Moines. Shortly after the incident a warrant was secured in Des Moines for his arrest on an abduction

Stevenson describes the case by the name of Walter McMillian sentenced to death for the accusations of killing a white women in Monroeville, Alabama. Stevenson represented McMillan as his lawyer in the late 1980’s when evidence was ignored proving his innocence. The local authorities make a case for McMillian , even though many witnesses stated he was at church fundraiser at his home when the murder had taken place. He was sent to

As the young men stood before an all white jury, six of them (Andy Wright, Willie Roberson, Charles Weems, Ozie Powell, Olen Montgomery, and Eugene Williams) refused to commit to a crime they didn't commit, while the other three admitted they did because of possible beatings other locals threatened to do. One of the most memorable parts of the trial was when Clarence Norris blatantly lied, saying ‘“They all raped her, every one of them.’” A local journalist later called the case “‘so conclusive as to be almost perfect.’” However, it was all a lie

In making her decision, Judge Sparks reiterated what every reasonable Canadian knows: racism exists in Canada and permeates the criminal justice system. There was no tangible proof of racism in this particular case, but none was required, as its presence can be taken for granted. However, the case was appealed, as the Crown alleged racial bias on the part of the trial judge.(3) Chief Justice Glube found that there was "reasonable apprehension of racial bias on the part of Judge Sparks" and ordered a new trial.(4) Glube's decision was upheld in this trial, and a further appeal resulted in the case being heard in the Supreme Court

During the early nineteen hundreds many people especially in the south were often convicted of crimes for no other reason than their skin color and contrary to many ideas about our court system, we have not always been the most honest and unbiased people. One prime example of this is the case of the Scottsboro Boys and how they were accused of rape and had to go to court numerous times, almost everytime ending in the death sentence. The evidence in the case clearly points towards the innocence of the Scottsboro boys, evidence such as unclear stories from the girls, lack of bruises and marks indicating assault as well as a previous history of prostitution from both of the girls. This evidence helps to prove that Charles Weems and the Scottsboro boys were innocent and wrongly accused and convicted.

Lavallee was a women that was abused by her significant other. Women all over the world are abused by their significant others, but only some women actually speak up and do something about it. Obviously killing a person is not the way to solve a problem. In this case Lavallee felt like if she didn’t kill or shoot Rust, he would have ended her life. The outcome of the court’s decision was appropriate to the fact that Lavallee suffered from battered women syndrome.

Racial dynamics were influential in the process of the case. There was collision between judges and prosecutors about the venue for the trial. The trial was moved to Baldwin County, a white county where only one African American served as a juror. The makeup of this jury panel would not allow McMillian a fair trial, the community was known to have racial bias undertones (Stevenson, 2014). Not only would the jury not allow McMillian a fair case, but neither would the judge. Robert E. Lee Key did all that was in his power to sway the case in his favor. He tried to persuade Stevenson not to take the case and agreed to move the trial to another county that was much more conservative and had “made less progress leaving behind the racial politics of Jim Crow” (Stevenson, 62). With lack of evidence pinning McMillian

April 6, 1931, the trials for the Scottsboro boys begin(Uschan 16). The boys were represented by Milo C. Moody and Stephen Roddy who were only given twelve days to prepare for the trials. Stephen was and unpaid, unprepared real estate attorney, and Milo was a forgetful seventy year old local attorney who hadn’t tried a case in a long time (“San Marcos” line 13). The trails were completely unorganized and false information was stated throughout the whole thing. The cross examination of Victoria Price lasted minutes and the defense offered very little information to the judge. Six out of the nine boys ended up denying the rape while 3 admitted to it. Even though the three men didn’t rape the women, because of beatings and threats, they admitted to the gang rape. By the time the trail had ended 8 out of the 9 boys were convicted and sentenced to death. Since one of the Scottsboro boys was only thirteen, he was considered too young to be tried as an adult (“UMKC” par. 6-7).

The IRR for this agreement ranges between 11.87% and 13.01%. The return on investment (ROI) for this particular agreement ranges between 52% and 58%. In either case, the numbers range because of provision (c) listed in the case’s Exhibit 1. The “deferred setup fee” fluctuates depending on potential sales of RMT’s assets.

In the Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms (1982) under section 11, it is stated that a person that has been charged with a criminal offence, has the right to a trial by jury. For many years jury trials have been under constant criticism in regards to the jury’s inability to adequately perform the responsibilities entrusted to them. Many studies have been performed looking into the jury selection process, jury bias, pre-trial publicity exposure and attitudes/personality of a juror, in order to increase the jury’s abilities to perform their responsibilities to present a fair trial. In the case People v. Weatherton (2014), the inappropriate behaviour of a jury member lead to a legal dispute regarding the final verdict. This behaviour lead to a lengthy investigation with the final decision, made by the Supreme Court of California, to reverse the guilty verdict. As a member of the jury, it is important to understand the responsibilities one must uphold while deciding whether a person is guilty or not guilty.

The Supreme Court of Canada uses the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to limit the scope of legislation and administrative power by implementing section one of the charter; which results in an open dialogue between the government and the courts on various legislation deemed unconstitutional. In this essay I will discuss the extent in which section one of the Canadian Charter allows the Supreme Court of Canada to dictate legislation, how they go about narrowing legislation and administrative power through the Oaks test, and the history of the Supreme Court from 1982 – present day will be analyzed resulting in an understanding of the legitimacy the courts play with such a role.