US V. Garcia Case Analysis

According to Pedro Garcia Jr., his sister Sandra Garcia asked him for help in dealing with her boy-friend Guerra-Torres. Guerra-Torres was heavily involved in the drug cartels Mexico. These people had threatened to kill her and all the family members at their house in Clark Wyo if Guerra-Torres did not pay off a drug debt to the tune of $40,000.00

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.

Like police officials, the public views prosecutors as the heroes in criminal cases because they are the ones who are acting for the good of the people, helping to fight crime, and ensuring the safety of the public. Or so we are lead to believe. However, many cases like the Nicarico case or the Rivera case show that the prosecutors are doing the opposite, and are instead hurting innocent people. In the Nacarico case, one instances of misconduct was when the prosecutor collaborated with their lieutenant, stating that he had been aware of the statement made by Cruz and was listed by the prosecution as a witness. However, later it came to light that the lieutenant was not in fact made aware of the “statement.” Even though there had been no written record of such a statement, simply because the right people claimed it occurred, the common trust bias in prosecutors and police officials cause the state of Illinois to pursue Cruz for over twelve

Pete Hernandez was a migrant cotton picker. He was arrested and accused of murdering Joe Espinoza in Enda, Tx. Although Gustavo Garcia, a Mexican-American civil rights lawyer knew that in the small town of Edna and in several other counties, there was not Mexican-American that had served all type of jury for at least the last twenty-five years, he accepted to represent

The trial began on January 20, 1909, not quite three months after the shooting. The prosecution was led by the flamboyant D.A. General, Jeff McCarn, who was assisted by Guston T. Fitzhugh.

On 1/9/2018, at approximately 1803 hours, In Durango 8 located at 3225 W. Gibson Ln, Phoenix AZ 85009, Inmate Estrada, Gustavo T419228 came to the side of the tower and said, “I don’t want to be house in Durango 8.” I asked him why and he said, “I want to talk to you in private.” I took Inmate Estrada out of the housing unit and he said, “I was assaulted by a couple of Chicanos in between C and D row.” I asked him if he knows who assaulted him and he said “No.” I asked him if he knew why he was assaulted and he said, “No.” I asked Inmate Estrada if he would be willing to aid in prosecution? Inmate Estrada refused to answer my question.

Albert Rodriguez, Jr. appeals from his conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter and felony vandalism. First, he contends that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of gang membership ~(AB 12)~ He also asserts the court violated Section 654 of the California Penal Code when it imposed consecutive sentences the vandalism charge. ~(AB 22)~ We conclude that the court properly admitted evidence of gang affiliation. Moreover, even if it was admitted wrongly, any error was harmless. Moreover, we find that the court did not violate section 654 when it imposed consecutive sentences for the manslaughter and vandalism charges. We therefore affirm the judgment.

On December 27, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the "Commission" or "IACHR") received a petition filed by Caroline Bettinger-López, Emily J. Martin, Lenora Lapidus, Steven Macpherson Watt, and Ann Beeson. , lawyers of the American Union for Civil Liberties [1] (hereinafter, the "petitioners") against the Government of the United States. (hereinafter, the "State" or "United States"). The petition was filed in the name of Mrs. Jessica Gonzales (Lenahan), a US citizen who alleges that the police did not respond to her repeated and urgent calls over several hours reporting that the spouse from whom she was separated had taken her three minor daughters (7, 8 and 10 years old), in violation of a court order of protection

P alleges false arrest. P alleges that she was hanging out with her friends after school when defendant MOS Jose Peinan became flirting with her. P alleges that she did not respond to MOS Peinan causing MOS Peinan to become angry. P alleges that MOS Peinan ordered two male MOS to arrest P and her friend, Marie Gonzales (non-party). P alleges that one of the male MOS patted her down and touched her breast. P alleges she was handcuffed and placed in a police van and taken to the 52 precinct. P alleges that she was denied food bought by her mother at the precinct. P also alleges that her request to have the handcuffs loosen was denied. MOS stated that they were conducting a UC buy and bust narcotics operation when P and Ms. Gonzales approached

I agree with you that the Ex Parte Crow Dog Supreme Court decision of 1833 was to uphold the law that established with the Indian Nation. The U.S government stated that the Indians had the right to rule the affairs in their own land by their own laws. In order to keep that promise, the Supreme Court released the murderer. Considering such indulgence may cause a series of problems, they established the Major Crime Act to regulate some crimes within the Indian territory. To verify the validity of this act, the court adjudicated the U.S v. Kagama case according to the law. Therefore, these affairs had very close connection.

At the end of the day although the prosecutor and dick hickock make valid point about the appropriate punishment for the crime, the prosecutor comment that dick death sentence should not be contingent on who actually pulled the trigger is a more valid statement while we may never know who pulled the trigger on the clutters, whether it be Perry side of the story or dick’s side of the story. We do know that dick is just as guilty as perry if not more, due to his involvement to the crime. He came up with the plan to rob and kill the clutters from his prison cell, he didn’t try to not kill the clutters when Perry asked him to leave after they didn’t find the money he stayed, he was always the brains in the group so the decision to get rid of the witnesses was

At the time that these youngmen were tried, DC was unsettled with citizens worried about the safety of their neighborhoodsand gang violence. Selecting this particular case means that I can play devil’s advocate inarguing the opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling. While the argument will not represent myown personal stance on this case, it is important to that the conduct of prosecutors and all otheragents within the justice system can be questioned. The conviction of the men came at the handsof investigators theories and eyewitness accounts, with no physical evidence. Whether or not thewithheld evidence would be exculpatory should be decided after it is introduced in a new case.From this research, I hope to gain a better understanding of due process and the rightsgranted to US citizens under the Fifth Amendment. I would also like to earn about the gatheringand submission of evidence as it relates to a trial and the conditions that determine whereevidence is admissible in court.ReferencesBarnes, R. (2017, September 22). Supreme Court rules that men convicted in D.C.’s CatherineFuller murder case do not deserve a new trial. Retrieved from The Washington Post:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rules-that-men-convicted-in-dcs-catherine-fuller-murder-case-do-not-deserve-a-new-trial/2017/06/22/78aed42e-56c8-11e7-ba90-f5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.3e06382f60c4Bass, V. (1972). Brady v. Maryland and the Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose. The University ofChicago Law Review, 40(1), 29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1599070Hochman, R. (1996). Brady v Maryland and the Search for Truth in Criminal Trials. heUniversity of Chicago Law Review, 63(4), 33. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1600284Turner v. United States. (2017, Septemeber 22). Retrieved from

I believe that the defense had more evidence and that they were more organized than the prosecutors.

Set in the roaring twenties the film Chicago is a musical starring Renee Zellweger as the client Roxie Hart who has just committed homicide. Roxie is represented by the famous lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere) who utilizes the media to influence the judge and juries decisions in favor of her case. The movie may dramatize the strategy of influencing the media to win cases, but it is portrayed accurately. Many lawyers in today’s time often utilize the media to help gain favor in their high profile cases. As an analysis of the movie the following questions will be considered.

José Ernesto Medellin Rojas, a Mexican National was arrested for the gang-rape and murder of two women who were locals of Texas. The case study highlights and goes through the facts in hand, the issues faced and the judgement, also the controversies which in turn grabbed attention by the media, before becoming known worldwide. Medellin was convicted and arrested for his crimes and was given death sentence by the Texas State Court. The key factor here is that Medellin being a Mexican national (spending most of his life in the United States) was not provided his rights to contact or inform consular personnel from Mexico concerning his detention in the US. According to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention (Which the US is also a signatory) Medellin should be given his rights to do so. Medellin also claimed that he was in-fact, not informed of this. With the intervention of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) suggesting that the convictions of Medellin should be re-assessed and made to be compliant with the Vienna Convention regulations. It is also noteworthy to mention that the ICJ has compulsory jurisdiction on dispute settlement, as a matter of fact the US had withdrawn from this protocol which remains optional. This furthermore led to the intervention of the US President and his actions meanwhile remain debatable because of the fact that he definitely has many