Trial Court Case Study

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”).

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

Evidence gathered from the scene of an alleged crime is critical to constructing a case against a defendant. However, the Constitution provides that it is absolutely essential for the proper procedures to be abided when gathering said evidence. While the availability of certain evidence items procured at the scene of an alleged crime may appear to reinforce the certainty of a defendant's guilt, the process by which this evidence is gotten will have a determinant impact on the ability of prosecution to prove this guilt. As the analysis hereafter will demonstrate, the 'exclusionary rule' is one of the cornerstone clauses to protecting citizens against undue invasion of privacy and freedom while simultaneously creating important standards of practice for law enforcement personnel. The case of Corley v. United States [No. 07-10441), heard before the United States Supreme Court in 2009 and opined upon by Justice David Souter, includes a prominent weighing of the exclusionary rule. The case of Corley v. U.S. demonstrates the determinant impact which the exclusionary rule can have on the findings and outcome of a case.

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn.

The legal procedures in protecting the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendant were not followed by the prosecutor when the evidence was withheld. The standards and procedures in the court system meant to safeguard the rights of individuals were also not followed by the prosecutor. The due process model was not followed by the defense lawyer in the case of Missouri vs. Frye since they did not follow the proper process that will minimize or eliminate mistakes and unfairness. In the case of the judge, the legal process was not utilized objectively when the judgment was passed on the persons accused of a crime. The judge did not pay full attention to all the information in the cases brought to the courtroom. The information would have protected innocent individuals from getting involved whenever improper decisions were made by the

The attached writing sample is an excerpt from a motion in limine written for my internship with the Office of the Public Defender, in which I analyzed a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine a witness. The defendant was charged with a crime predicated on evidence alleged to be a controlled substance that was seized by law enforcement officers and submitted to the Broward Sheriff’s Office Crime Lab for testing. Kelli McDonald, a crime lab chemist, performed the forensic analysis of the alleged controlled substance, in this case. The State relied upon the forensic analysis of the suspect controlled substance performed by the Crime Lab to prosecute this case. However, in 2012, Kelli McDonald was the subject of an internal affairs investigation conducted by the Broward Sheriff’s Office: Department of Professional Standards regarding the loss or mishandling of evidence.

Defendant was the alleged perpetrated a shooting subsequently the victim expired. The defense attorney requested a motion prohibiting the government from mentioning or offering into evidence any testimony regarding his prior criminal conviction for assault causing serious bodily injury, except to be brought forth in the court of Records. The defendant has previous assault and criminal convictions on his record and the attorney requested this to be suppressed.

As you know, under Maryland Rule 5-404(b), evidence of prior crimes may be admitted to show some “special relevance” to the issues in the present case in very limited factual scenarios. The evidence may not be used to show that the accused is a bad person but it should be permitted to illustrate (1) the defendant’s motive to commit the crime, (2) the defendant’s intent to commit the crime, (3) that the defendant engaged in a common scheme or plan to achieve an overarching criminal enterprise, (4) that the defendant was, in fact, the person who committed the crime, (5) and that there was a lack of mistake or accident on the part of the defendant when the crime was committed. With the adoption of Rule 5-404(b), came the growing list of exceptions. The exceptions specifically listed in the rule are not a laundry list of exceptions; they are a representative list of

The case went all the way to the supreme court. The supreme court ruled in favor of Mapp’s five to three stating that the evidence that was withheld was found during an unlawful search and could not be used as evidence the trial at a state level nor a supreme court level.

On the second page Line question 22, Asking the witness (As Mr. Witness), “Are you aware of the fact that twenty years ago Mr. Michelson was convicted of selling watches without the proper trademark? Line answer 25, “No, I have never heard such a thing.” and Line question 27, “Are you aware of the fact that twenty-one years ago, Mr. Michelson was convicted of smoking marijuana?” and Line answer 30, “No, I did not know that”. The prosecution is not allowed to introduce evidence of a defendant's evil character to establish a probability of his guilt. The State may not show defendant's prior trouble with the law or specific criminal act.

Whether the conduct of counsel for the prosecution undermined the integrity of the trial so as to amount to injustice to the appellant.

Pursuant to the view of Deane J in regards to logically probative evidence, this elucidates the significance of logically probative evidence as opposed to the mere requirement of “some evidence” to make administrative merits review decisions as outlined by Mason CJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990).

This paper discusses how the film, Inherit The Wind, portrays the Scopes Monkey Trial. The film showed both sides of the argument fairly. It was conveying a message that a person should try to understand and respect each opinion when arguing their own side. Three evidentiary issues of the trial in the film will also be discussed. The three issues that are objected to in the film are an opinion question, hearsay, and relevance. The judge sustained all three objections, saying that they were inadmissible. I agree with the judge 's ruling on the opinion question, but I do not agree with the judge 's ruling on the hearsay and relevance objection. For each of these issues, there will be a discussion of the Federal Rule of Evidence that is implicated, the judge’s ruling on the issue, and whether or not the ruling was appropriate by comparing it to the Federal Rules of Evidence. Each issue will be explained in detail with the context of the conversation to show how it happened in the film.

The time restriction under s.41(3)(b) YJCEA ‘at or about’ is extremely narrow. It may infringe the right of the accused to a fair trial under art.6 by the exclusion of

Undeniable influence points out of a rule of evidence, an act which would put the applicant groundless fortifications. However, there is no denying that the defense considerable results are the realization of the expectations of the defendant. By confirm the commitment of the applicant, the corresponding contract, and the court may decide to confiscate evidence, which have turned to all sorts of the choice of contract. Taylor (2003) argues that such action may produce a criticism of the "all or nothing" result of prohibition and to the restoration of the applicant in an actual loss events increase defendant cannot diminish his expectations, choosing to consider banning agreed. On the other hand, considering the doctrine of is still a difficult any obstacle in this direction.