Rape Case Of A Crime Assault And Suspicion Of Rape

In the book Monster by Walter Dean Myers, two boys named Steve Harmon and James King are facing charges for felony murder. Sandra Petrocelli is the prosecutor, and Kathy O’Brien is the defense attorney for Steve Harmon. They both do an excellent job with their arguments, however, they both want different things. Because O’Brien wants the jury to see Steve as a good person while Petrocelli wants the jury to see Steve as a monster, they each must bring their strongest arguments to determine Steve’s guilt or innocence. Kathy O’Brien is Steve Harmon’s defense attorney, and her job is to prove Steve not guilty.

This may or may not proceed to trial or a plea barging, in fact, the charge may end up being dismissed, by the prosecutor, grand jury or judge. The first task for a Bert's defense attorney in this rape charge is to determine whether there are any grounds on which the charge against Bert could be dismissed before a plea or trial. Some grounds for dismissal include: lack of probable cause to arrest, an improper criminal complaint or charging document, lack of evidence to prove the defendant committed the crime, an unavailable witness who is necessary to prove defendant did not commit the crime, and the loss of evidence if there was any necessary to prove defendant committed the crime. In order to arrest a Bert, Jones, and Walsh police must have probable cause to believe that all three did commit the crime of rape. A police officer cannot arrest any of the three simply because he has a gut feeling that they committed the crime. The officer must have a reasonable belief based on objective factual circumstances that one or any of the three committed the crime. ("Getting a Criminal Charge Dismissed. "

Answer: A trial judge has broad discretion to deny a motion for severance even when counsel demonstrate that two defendants will present conflicting and irreconcilable defenses.

Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel do not conduct a field study as Frohmann does, instead they examined all sexual assault cases cleared by arrest in Miami Florida in 1997. They did however replicate Frohmann’s design of interviewing a sample of the prosecutors who handled the cases. By using this different method of research, Spohn, Beichner, and Davis-Frenzel’s are able to show the frequency in which prosecutors used discrepant accounts and ulterior motives to reject cases. This extends upon Frohmann’s research. Their findings that, “charging decisions primarily reflect the prosecutor’s assessment of the likelihood of conviction” (Spohn, et al. 2001, p. 206) is consistent with Frohmann 's Findings. They also agreed with Frohmann’s categories of typifications, however they found that a substantial amount of cases were rejected for reasons other than discrediting the victim such as, the victim’s failure to appear for a pretrial interview, refusal to cooperate in the prosecution of the case, or admission that the charges were fabricated (Spohn, et al. 2001).

Christmas Day 1996, the body of young JonBenet Ramsey is found strangled and raped in her basement. The family of the girl has no idea what happened and they are distraught. Ten years pass before police find circumstantial evidence that a 41 year old school teacher named John Mark Karr could be involved in the murder. The police traced his internet activity and found emails about the murder to a professor at the University of Colorado. They also found child pornography on his computer. The police held him on the charge of child pronography when they began questioning him about Ramsey’s murder. Karr admitted to the murder of the child. There was no physical evidence linking the man to the murder and he provided only facts and elements of

Many cases throughout time have not resulted in a conviction being made, for the sole reason that the charges exceeded the statute of limitations. The statue of limitations is defined as “the maximum amount of time allowed for a party to initiate legal proceedings”(Legal dictionary, 2016). Present day, every state is entitled to their own statute of limitations on rape and sexual assault. 34 States currently have a statutes of limitations on rape/sexual assault. Some of these states have a statute of limitations but there is a DNA exemption rule, ruling that if a DNA match is made later than the statute then that case will be exempt from the statute of limitations. Only 16 states have no statute of limitations for rape and sexual assault (Filipovic, 2016, p .A23).

After Jennifer Thompson-Cannino was raped in 1984, she identified a man in a police lineup and in court as her attacker. The detective conducting the lineup told Jennifer that she had done great, confirming that she had chosen the suspect. Eleven years later, DNA evidence proved that the suspect, Ronald Cotton, had been wrongfully convicted of the rape. A man named Bobby Poole, who Thompson testified she had never seen before, was the man who actually raped her. Ronald and Jennifer's book, picking cotton, portrays common factors that contribute to erroneous convictions. Although it addresses a variety of important issues, the most crucial is how subtle factors like eyewitness misidentification, confirmation bias and nature of a defendant can

Christopher was identified in a crime line-up and two of the women-mother and sister of the rape victim was in court and identified Coleman as the offender. They didn’t find any physical evidence to show that Coleman committed this crime. The victim's mother told the prosecutor that she had know Coleman years earlier and she had not seen him recently, but recognized his voice and distinctive walk. Another sister told the court that she knew Christopher by the nickname “Fat” and that he had removed his mask during the crime when it was occurring. Nevertheless, these women had identified Coleman to responding during the grand jury hearing, and the other sister had incorrectly identified at least two other alleged

accounts of sexual abuse,But all the evidence of the case is pointing otherwise. Such as the

[I]n 2001, three young men robbed a McDonald’s restaurant in Milwaukee. 14-year-old Jerrell C.J. was arrested in connection with the offense, taken to the police station, booked, and placed in an interrogation room. In the room, Jerrell was handcuffed to a wall and left alone for approximately two hours. At 9 a.m., Police Detectives Ralph Spano and Kurt Sutter entered the interrogation room. The detectives introduced themselves, removed Jerrell’s handcuffs, and asked him some background questions. Jerrell stated that he was 14 years old and in the eighth grade. He also provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of his parents and siblings. Jerrell was advised of his Miranda rights, and the detectives then began to question Jerrell about the armed robbery. Jerrell denied any involvement. The detectives challenged this denial and encouraged Jerrell to be "truthful and honest" and "start standing up for what he did." Jerrell again denied his involvement. The detectives again challenged his denial.

The book Monster, by Walter Dean Myers, tells the tale of two young men being on trial for felony murder. Sixteen year-old Steve Harmon and twenty-two year-old James King are accused of participating in a robbery that caused the death of an innocent man. That innocent man’s name was Aguinaldo Nesbitt, and he owned a drugstore in Harlem. The Prosecutor, Sandra Petrocelli claims that Steve Harmon served as the lookout in the robbery, and also says James King was the one who pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Aguinaldo Nesbitt. Steve Harmon’s Attorney Kathy O’Brien does a great job of making Steve appear as a regular, respectful, smart kid, and seems to have a great interest in film which his teacher George Sawicki points out in his testimony. James King’s attorney, Asa Briggs, tries her very best to make King look innocent, but there isn’t much evidence that doesn’t put him at the crime scene. The state calls two witnesses that are very significant in deciding whether James King is guilty, and why Steve is not, and those witnesses are Richard “Bobo” Evans and Lorelle Henry. And the defense ( Kathy O’Brien) calls George Sawicki to the stand and he preaches about how great of a student and person Steve is, so it makes him look even more innocent to the jury. All of these witnesses make James King look

We are Schuetter, Tuttle, and Keldsen. The verdict to this case is simple. Ozie Powell did not take part in the rape, and will be declared innocent. The state brought forward prostitutes Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, along with Price’s boyfriend, Lester Carter. Carter is an unreliable source. He will be completely biased toward the women, especially his girlfriend, Bates. He lied for the benefit of them. Also, there is inconsistency between Price and Bate’s answers. Price stated that she did know who raped her, and recognized the group of black boys, while Bates did not recognize or remember any of the group. The police also did not complete a thorough investigation. The police arrested every young black male on the train, assuming that they all partook in the rape, when that is really not true. No one raped the women. According to Dr. Bridges, a certified doctor, the semen was non-motile. This means that the women lied about the case. There is absolutely no evidence that the women got raped. The women were never raped. They were just trying to frame the men. It is ostensible that through our extensive investigation, we have revealed an abundant quantity of reasons and a plethora of vigorous auxiliary evidence to authenticate the innocence of the defendant, Ozie Powell. We postulate that Ozie Powell is utterly guiltless and that Victoria Price and Ruby Bates have formulated elaborate fabrications about the manifestation of rape on

If the governing body requested that I set up a give an account of statutory assault due to the developing number of underage young ladies who have been impregnated by grown-up men. Examines uncover that numerous high school pregnancies result from undertakings that underage young ladies have with more established men, with age crevices running from 7 to 10 years. For instance, the regular relationship arraigned in California includes a 13-year-old young lady and a 22-year-old male accomplice. Some insulted guardians resolvedly bolster a law that will give state stipends to provinces to indict statutory assault. These awards would permit more overwhelming implementation of the law and could bring about the conviction of more than 1,500 wrongdoers

As stated in the government’s motion, since the victim was very uncooperative, Mr. Bates served as a willing witness who would testify against Mr. Coleman. Therefore, without Mr. Bates’ timely assistance, cooperation, and willingness to testify, the government would not have been able to successfully prosecute Mr. Coleman, who ultimately entered a guilty plea before this Court.

Severance works somewhat differently in federal criminal trials because this case involves the indictment of more than one defendant Jones, Walsh and Bert. In Bert 's situation, his defense attorney will provide an argument that a joint trail might be unfair against Bert or reaching a decision on the rape charges against him. The Severance is not automatic because the Federal rule 14 allows judges broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a severance to Bert. To be successful, Bert’s defense will to fill a motion for his severance which must show the concerns for Bert 's right to a fair trial outweigh the goals of the joinder. One of the most successful grounds for seeking severance for Bert arises when Bert wishes not to testify on all, some or any of the charges in the trail but chooses to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege on one or more charges. The separating by court order, such as separate trials for Bert, Jones, and Walsh who are charged with the same crime, or trying the negligence aspect of the rape charge or any other charge before the trail. Such division of issues in the trail is sometimes called "bifurcation." ("Burton 's Legal Thesaurus," 4E. (2007).