Stanford Vs. 3 Count Of Arson V.

On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss

assistance of council, and procedural bars, venue, and jury selection, as well as potential racism by jurors. According to ( Tabak, 1999) “these reasons apply in cases in which the death penalty may be sought.” When illustrating the use of prosecutorial discretion two crime types that can be

The parties in this case study were the family of Jeremy Knoke and South Carolina Department of Parks and Recreation. July 5, 1991, 12 year old Jeremy Knoke died while sleeping in a cabin at Cherew State Park. He was staying at the park’s group camp facility as a guest of Berea First Baptist Church which had leased the facility from the park and recreation department. There were five boys asleep in the cabin when a fire broke out due to an electrical fan Jeremy brought with him from home. The other boy’s were able to escape the cabin quickly but Jeremy did not. His body was found on the bed next to his own as if he tried to escape but was unable to do so. The cause of death in this case was asphyxiation from smoke inhalation. The estate of

What was the ruling of the court at the trial level and briefly explain the trial judge’s decision?

The question at hand was that how much evidence must an individual, who was already trialed and convicted of a crime, present to a court in order for the court to review his case (“House v Bell”).

Legal Claim: State of New Hampshire (Superior court) questioned whether certain laws applied to the specific facts of Etzweiler’s case. Ralph Bailey was indicted for manslaughter and Mark Etzweiler was indicted for negligent homicide after the fatal accident involving bailey had occurred.

As I, Klaudia Hoxha (forensic technician), approached the crime scene at 4 o'clock pm at the residence of Josh Powell. As i approached the scene i noticed 4 reporting officers, and the fire fighters who put the fire out, were present at this two story single family dwelling. I approached the reporting officers and fire fighters and took copies of there reports. I then immendently, sent in my team to take pictures and any kind of evidence they can find. From the looks this residential seemed occupied. A fire expands horizontally and vertically from it's point of origin, which in this case is the center of the house. According to a report, i noticed a witness who was a member/ social worker from Powell's meeting groups ,gave a statement that

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

found unconstitutional. The court believed that a law enforcement officer isn't expected to question whether every statute passed by legislation is constitutional or not (Lippman, 422). Lastly, the court case Maryland v. Garrison, the court ruled that evidence discovered by law enforcement officers with a warrant would be allowed in court even if officers searched out of the area that was allowed by the warrant. In the court case, 6 law enforcement officers were given a search warrant that allowed them to search a single apartment unit located on the third floor. Officers began searching the third floor and saw two apartments that were open. Once officer began to search both apartments they realized that the third floor was divided into two

In the beginning of July there was a bombing at a law office in Winnipeg. Maria Mitousis, opened up a package that was sent to her which resulted in a bomb going off. The 38 year old lawyer lost her right hand and was injured on her face, chest, thighs and left hand. Later on it was discovered that there were two other bombs, one at another law firm and another at a business on Washington Street (Caroline Barghout, July 6th) the accused is Guido Amsel, he is being accused on 3 accounts of attempted murder, aggravated assault and explosive charges. The first bomb that exploded was sent to his Maria Mitousis his ex-wife’s lawyer, the second was intended for his past lawyer, and the last was intended for his ex-wife Iris Amsel. Guido and his wife had a long divorce case that resulted in him losing a lot of money. Their son

From what was brought to the Supreme Courts attention the police did everything properly, they knocked on the door loudly and told the tenants they were the police. If they do not do those two things the tenants may not hear them or they may not open the door because they do not know who it is. This is where the situation became exigent because then the tenants inside began running around and obviously destroying evidence. The police then shouted they were going to enter the apartment and busted the door down to get it. The respondent pointed to no evidence supporting his argument that the officers made any sort of demand to enter the apartment, much less a demand that amounts to a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. The record was made clear that the officers’ announcement that they were going to enter the apartment was made after the exigency arose, therefore everything that happened was just.

(4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 17-19.) Further, according to Plaintiffs, the property’s water supply came from a well, which was not safe for drinking. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 20-22.) Also that month, Nenn allegedly informed Defendants that a “large hole on the side of the house near the bathroom . . . remained open and in disrepair,” which left the “insulation totally exposed to the elements,” certain windows were missing trim and weather sealing, and that “another large hole existed near Nenn’s bedroom that allowed the exterior elements to penetrate” the property. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 23-28.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to make the repairs within sixty days. (4th Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28,

Similarly, all of these laws either increase the period of incarceration for violent crime, expand the number of crimes that are included in the violent crime category, or both. Equally, all 25 states except for Kansas, had preexisting laws that focused on the repetition of violent offenders. Additionally, a large portion of states new legislations had reduced judicial circumspection at the sentencing phase of the process. It is clear that there are specific limitations on judges’ decisions when it comes to sentencing guidelines.

This essay is purposed for the evaluation of the provocative case, The State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, more commonly referred to as O.J. Simpson. On the 12th of June, 1994 the homicide of Nicole Simpson, O.J. Simpson’s ex-wife, occurred at her home. Reports of a body sprawled out the front of Nicole Simpson’s house were made through a 911 call. On arrival, police made the discovery of Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman’s dead bodies outside the house. The review of this investigation will be achieved through; Assessment of the key aspects of the process of investigation. Evaluation of the main investigative flaws made throughout the investigation. Identifying strategies to prevent these flaws from happening in

After the original trial, it was unquestionable that Green could not have been tried again for first degree murder for the death resulting from the fire. A plea of former jeopardy should have been accepted by the trial judge of the second trial period.