Research Paper On Double Jeopardy

2. Does it matter that we cannot find Benjamin Creighton to arrest and prosecute him for the underlying felony?

Mary Surratt should have been executed . She should have been executed because she lied about knowing people .

v. To dumb it down- he was found guilty because the things he said were not protected by the first amendment.

The four basic components of the Fifth Amendment include: double jeopardy, due process, the right to be heard by a jury and safeguards against self-incrimination. Double jeopardy is when the individual can only be tried for a crime once. In the event that they are acquitted and new information surfaces, they cannot be retried again for the same crime. Instead, new charges would have to be filed showing the individual violated another area of the law. (Sundahl, 2011)

The Court found that Georgia’s system for applying the death penalty was “judicious” and “careful.” Gregg had gone through two trials – one to determine guilt and one for sentencing. Further, specific jury findings of “aggravating circumstances” were necessary to impose the death penalty. There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional. The Court ruled, “The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance in the United States (n.d.,Web).

In the scenario, three individuals, Joe, Larry, and Bob, were convicted criminals and who were speeding in a stolen vehicle, when they saw a group of rivals. Joe was in the passenger seat warning the others that he was going to shoot at the rival members with a weapon he concealed it in his waistband; Larry the driver, drove the vehicle closer to the opponents. At the stop sign, Bob, who was in the back seat, left the car because he was on parole and didn’t want to go back to imprisonment. Afterwards, Larry drove past the adversaries as Joe discharged a few shots; one individual was murder and the other was shot in the leg.

Because Bailey was not aware that his actions were going to result in homicide he did not have to intent to do so

Casey must be guilty because she had some motivation to kill her child and there is

The 5th amendment declares No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit admitting that he had committed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeals had confirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only on the question of punishment. The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process "where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment"; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence couldn’t have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals ' ruling was confirmed. A defendant 's request for "Brady disclosure" refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the various state and federal cases that interpret its obligation that the prosecution discloses material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.

The decision of killing should not be looked upon as criminal. George does not have a cruel heart nor does he take pleasure in killing Lennie. George wants what is best for Lennie and he takes the time to set up a nice, peaceful conversation on a topic of interest to Lennie. He instructs Lennie to ?look down there acrost the river, like you can almost see the place? (106). He reassures Lennie that everyone will treat him pleasingly.

In order to prevent this agony from befalling his dear friend, George took it upon himself to kill Lennie with a quick, painless death by shooting him in the back of the head. This form of killing someone results in a painless, instantaneous death, as by shooting in the back of the head as done by George and Carlson, the spinal cord is obliterated, instantly killing the victim, so that they feel nothing. George decided to kill Lennie at his very happiest, while he was thinking about their plans for their piece of land. In doing so, George prevented Lennie from causing any harm to anyone else, or himself. He also saved Lennie from any grief or pain from being executed or shot by someone without sympathy, as well as having Lennie know of his death. One moment, Lennie was bubbling over taking care of his rabbits, the next he was dead, blissfully unaware of dying. This is the noblest motive for killing, and one that was highly justified by George, as well as preferable for Lennie. "And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie 's head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger. The crash of the shot rolled up the hills and rolled down again. Lennie jarred and then settled slowly forward to the sand, he lay without quivering."(p. 106)

Scott Peterson was found guilty of second-degree murder for his son’s death. The prosecutors wanted two first-degree murder convictions, but jurors believed that the slaying of the unborn child, Conner, was not premeditated and deliberate. The one first-degree murder count in conjunction with the special circumstance of multiple counts of murder, made Scott Peterson eligible for the death penalty (CourtTV, 2008).

Libby vs. United States was a trial that included a man named Scooter Libby and the government. Libby was charged was not charged with revealing Plames CIA status but he was charged with obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of

Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person for an offense for which he or she has already been prosecuted. The double jeopardy clause, which is in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, was designed to protect an individual from being subject to trials and possible convictions more then once for an alleged offense. The idea was not to give the State too much over the individual, this way no individual will be subject to embarrassment, expense, and ordeal against being tried for an alleged offense more then once. It also reduces the possibility of someone innocent being found guilty. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment embodies three protections to criminal