Tulin V. S. Fergile Case Study

The prosecutor improperly questioned the alibi witness about his failure to come forward with exculpatory information. The trial abused its discretion by not reopening the suppression hearing, at which the defendant was represented by ineffective counsel” (Appellate Squawk, 2016). He had no prior arrests or records on file and that seemed not to phase the court. With the consent of the Brooklyn District Attorney’s office and extensive investigations by the Innocence Project, the court released Andre Hatchett dismissing his indictment. He had been wrongfully convicted based on the questionable credibility of a man who has had a career in criminal activity. Also, information was withheld from the court and the defense counsel that could have led Mr. Hatchett’s

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), “the jury found Hurtado guilty of murder of Jose Stuardo at his trial and trial court sentence Hurtado to death” (Ingram p. 48). After the verdict was read, Hurtado through his defending attorney contest that the verdict was invalid because Hurtado under the Fifth Amendment has a right to a grand jury trial. However, the Supreme Court rejected Hurtado’s defense argument. Therefore, in this essay I am going to discuss the reason the Court decided the case the way it did and if the right to a grand jury indictment an essential of due process.

Twenty years later information surfaced that suggested that the evidence in the two previous trials had been tampered with. The Assistant District Attorney, with the help of Evers's widow, began compiling a new case. (Elliot Jr., pg.1)

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

In its brief, the government asserted that the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction “does not turn on the content of jury instructions.” Rather, the sufficiency of the evidence standard is made with reference to an accurate understanding of the elements required for a conviction. As such, a conviction should be upheld if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” At the federal level, these elements are defined by Congress, meaning that an erroneous jury instruction should have “no effect on sufficiency analysis.” Thus, the government contended that its failure to object to an erroneous jury instruction should not have any impact on whether the elements as defined by Congress supported a finding of guilt.

On January 24, 2017 I observed the court case of William Satchell vs. Johnny Griffin. The name of the case I observed was Butler in department 20 and the judge present was Michael G Bowman. I arrived to 720 9th Street in Sacramento, CA at 1pm and stayed until 4pm. I observed a murder case where I watched the defense attorney Johnny Griffin try and defend his client Mr. Butler. Mr. Butler shot and killed Carl Talent an innocent man. Carl talent was shot and killed and the defense attorney Johnny Griffin said the killing was a result of a heated argument. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin said Mr. Butler shot and killed Carl Talent due to self-defense because he was scared for his life. The defense attorney Johnny Griffin made clear to

Prosecutors play a critical role in determining a defendant’s guilt. Despite this role, the powers ascribed to prosecutors have long been debated. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the United States Supreme Court sought to clarify the powers ascribed to prosecutors in three cases. These cases included: Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150, and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Although the issue explored by the Supreme Court differed in each of these cases, the verdict in each case helped to clarify whether or not prosecutors in the United States had the right to suppress evidence.

The event took place in Cleveland, Ohio, when Dollree Mapp’s house was entered by police officers, who weren’t carrying any official search warrants. The police believed she was sheltering a suspected bomber; no evidence or bodies were found, but police discovered a chest containing explicit pictures stored within her basement - these pictures violated state law. With this discovery, the police arrested Mapp due to the vulgar images they obtained. Once arrested, Dollree claimed that her fourth amendment of rights had been violated by the police, and ultimately brought her case to the supreme court. The supreme court came to the decision that illegally seized evidence shall not be authorized for use in criminal prosecutions in federal courts and later broadened this ruling to state courts.

The appellant, Gary Cassidy, was living with his mother, Alice Bieber, in Windsor Ontario. The appellant’s mother went to bed while the appellant went out. The morning after Mrs. Bieber noticed her car was missing from the driveway. She assumed that her son had taken it out the night before. Alice, asked her son if he knew anything about her car being missing, the appellant denied knowing about the car and mentioned that Mrs. Bieber should report it to the police, which she did. Shortly after two police officers arrived at the appellant’s residence informing Mrs. Bieber that her car had been recovered in damaged condition the night before. She stated that her son may know something about her car. The officers started questioning the appellant. During questioning the appellant became upset and aggressive towards the two officers. The appellant started verbally abusing the officers, accusing them of trespassing and told them to get off of the property or he would make them. Mrs. Bieber tried to intervene but the appellant ignored her. Shortly after the appellant threatened the officers, he ran into the living room and grabbed one 12-guage shotgun off

When the police officers got there they had been given permission to enter Mr. Chimel’s home from his wife, since they had not been issued a search warrant. The police waited for for him to appear and when he had arrived he was given the arrest warrant. Mr. Chimel denied their request to look around his house but ignoring his answer, the officer’s started to do a full search. The man had been issued an arrest warrant because he was convicted with burglary charges. The items taken from his house during the search were not used against him in the trial because they had been unconstitutionally

The court reasoned that this testimony was crucial to the accused’ defense in that it “caused the appellant to engage in illegal conduct by methods of persuasion.” Ortiz at

“‘Petitioner (Nguyen) contends that the trial court denied him due process by excluding the testimony of an expert in Southeast Asian culture and an expert in hostage negotiations.’ NGUYEN v. GALAZA, (N.D. Cal. 2001), No. C 99-3782 MMC (PR) (N.D. Cal. May. 24, 2001)” (Maxine M.Chesney, p. 8). He also claimed the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by limiting cross-examination with two of the officer/negotiators present at the incident. All requests to be given additional trial to Nguyen were

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a