Tiara Smith Case Summary

* 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.

In the case of the State v. Stu Dents, the jury found the defendant guilty of the following charges: homicide, assault of a police officer, kidnapping, and crimes related to drugs. They felt that there was no sufficient evidence to charge him with the crime of burglary. It has come down to the sentencing stage of this case. We will hear from both the prosecuting and defending attorneys before the court makes their final ruling on the sentence of one, Mr. Stu Dents.

The trial was long and was delayed numerous times due to Kunstler’s busy schedule with other demanding trial cases. The delays were also part of Kunstler’s defense strategy. There was an abundance of evidence shown throughout the trial among which was the ballistics test. These test showed that of the five shots that Skagen endured only two were from Richardson’s gun. After a yearlong trial the prosecutor and the defense gave their summations and the jury deliberated. The deliberation took several days. In the end Richardson was convicted with three of the original seven charges; manslaughter in the second degree, possessing a weapon as a felony, and criminal possessing of stolen property in the third degree. The judge sentenced Richardson to a term no more than ten years for the conviction of manslaughter in the second degree. No more than seven years for the conviction of felony possession of a weapon. The criminal possession of stolen property was unconditionally discharged and the sentences were to be served concurrently. Kunstler appealed this sentenced and Richardson was allowed to stay out of jail on bail. On April 13, 1976 the Appellate Division reversed the manslaughter conviction and the felony gun conviction. The case was sent back to the original court and Richardson was resentenced to three years

Since the Court of Appeals issued a ruling in favor of M’s appeal and reversed the lower court’s ruling on the matter in 2010, which means the Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict and the $18.5 million judgment against M.

Marissa Alexander a thirty three year old African American woman in Jacksonville, Florida was involved in a domestic dispute with her abusive husband in their home. The dispute stemmed from allegations of their recently born child being fathered by another man. During the course of the altercation Ms. Alexander retreated to the garage. Claims state that the garage was locked ant that she could retreat any further. She then retrieved a hand gun from her car which she had a permit to own as well as a permit to carry and reentered the home where warning shot was fired into the ceiling of the home. Ms. Alexander was arrested and charged with attempted murder and she received a twenty year sentence. She has since requested a retrial and her supporters are afraid that she could receive an even harsher sentence since her husband’s two minor children were present in the home during the shooting. Ms. Alexander could possibly face three counts of aggravated assault with a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years each.

The court reversed the trial court’s affirmation and remanded the case for a new trail.

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Americans with Disability Act claim. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims.The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff new trial. The appellate court the district court’s ruling.

The motion for partial summary for the plaintiff was denied by the court and the objection was overruled without prejudice to raise the issue for consideration at trial.

The Trial Court had not allowed the instruction on affirmative defense of abandonment and renunciation. The Appeals court reversed and sent it back to trial, so that the instruction could be

2. Case Facts: On October 13, 1979, George Schnopps fatally shot his wife of 14 years. The victim and schnopps began having marital problems six months prior, when schnopps became suspicious that his wife was seeing another man. A few days prior to the incident, Schnopps threatened to make his wife suffer. On October 12, 1979 while at work asked a coworker to buy him a gun, telling the worker that he had been receiving threatening phone calls. Schnopps paid his coworker for the gun and ammunition. On the day of the incident, Schnopps told a neighbor he was going to call his wife and have her come pick up some things, and asked if them to keep the youngest child with her so he could talk to with his wife. When the wife went over Schnopps tried to convince his wife to stay with him, in response the wife made some vulgar comments which triggered Schnopps. He then shot her and then shot himself. Shortly after he called the neighbor and told her what had happened and she called the police. The defense offered evidence from friends and coworkers who noticed difference in Schnopps physical and emotional health after the victim had left him. The Commonwealth’s expert

7. Court’s Order: As a result of this holding the court has established sufficient law entitles P to have her case heard before trial court.

Nature of Case: The District Court condemned Antoine Jones of previous drug crimes. The defendant asked for an appeal and then then it headed D.C. Circuit of Appeals which they ended up reversing the condemnation. They stated that the no warrant use of the GPS violated the fourth amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review order of a higher court from previous court decision).

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

In order to be able to appeal, we have to find out if there was a legal error that occurred in the trial court, and that such an error was material, thus, it would have changed the outcome of the trial.