Unsound Father Case

Los Angeles Rams Football Club v. Cannon 185 F. Supp. 717 (S.D. Cal. 1960) Plaintiff prays for an injunction to restrain defendant playing football or engaging in related activities for anyone other than the plaintiff without the plaintiff’s consent during the term of a contract or contracts allegedly entered into by the

On May 18, 2018, a very important case was decided on. The issue on the table: Lennie Small murdered the wife of Mr. Curley in 1931. They were alone in a barn, when Mr. Small strangled her and broke her neck. The courtroom was tense, as both the ghost of Lennie Small and the ghost of Curley’s Wife were both present at the time. On the defendant side, their main point was to talk about his innocents due to unknowing. Lennie was mentally disabled, and therefore couldn’t know he was hurting her. In their opening statement, they specifically mention that all humans make mistakes; Lennies just happen to be more intense due to his mental state On the prosecuting side, they claimed murder is murder. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t mean to; he still

The legal citation of the case. Regina v [2001] NSWSC 1011 (8 november 2001) The elements of the offence. In order for a trial to be brought, the police and prosecutors might be able to prove that the elements of the particular offence are present. In this criminal case both Actus reus, Mens rea as well causation was clearly shown through the behavior of Katherine Knight.

In 12 Angry Men, Juror #8 tries to convince the other jurors that the defendant of the case, an 18 year old boy accused of stabbing his father to death, is not guilty based on a reasonable doubt. Throughout the film Juror #8 goes over the facts and details of the case to point out the flaws in the evidence in order to prove there is, in fact, a reasonable doubt. The film depicts the struggles of the underdog and going against the majority in order to stand up for what is right. In one scene, the piece of evidence being put into question is a testimony from an elderly man who lived below the boy and his father and claimed he heard the murder happen and saw the boy leave the apartment after it happened. It is being put into question whether the elderly man who walked with a limp could make it to his doorway in order to witness the boy running away from the crime in fifteen seconds.

The argument started out with juror #8 stating that he didn’t know if the kid was guilty or not, he just believed that there were a lot of holes in the case that would lead him to believe there is reasonable doubt in the conviction. Though this seemed like a weak argument, there were many different key points that were made to undermine the original argument. Jumping from one fact to the next, juror #8 eventually persuaded the entire group to change their vote to not guilty. Juror #8, when presenting the various portions of his argument, always remains calm, as well as the other men who eventually join his side. Juror #4, though on the original position, actually provides a lot of this logical approach. He admits that the opposition makes sense and when the argument overrides his, he admits he is wrong and changes his vote. This type of argument, when proven with ethos and pathos, is successful and will gain logical support to win the overall

On the 4th April, 2016, the Supreme Court of Queensland began hearing the matter of R v Blyton; Cairns. In this case, the accused, Nikolaus Blyton, was charged with murder over the death of his father, Ron Livingstone, who was killed on a houseboat owned by co-defendant Timothy Cairns in

Koppersmith’s testimony of his actions portrayed a picture of unintentional events. The judge referred to the Woods case, “ there was some evidence that the appellant failed to perceive the risk that the victim might die as a result of his actions.” Because there was evidence that gave a reasonable theory that would have supported the jury receiving instructions on criminally negligent homicide, there was error in the trial court not giving the jury the instructions. Therefore the judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

In the State of Wisconsin with the trial of Jamie Covington we found him guilty of first degree murder. Jamie ment to shoot Dallas because dallas was always above him and better. Dallas forgot his keys one evening and he went through the window because he forgot his keys, he claims that he had gone through the window before and he didn't think anything would happen. This is why everyone is being questions to see if he was guilty or no, which he is guilty. During this case the lawyers questioned many people, but their stories weren't adding up. They talked to Ronnie Cecop, Casey Kramer, and Lane Smith they were on the defence side. Then Morgan Dexter, Blair Allen, and Jamie Covington where the prosecution. Most of the people on the prosecution side were very nervous, didn't know some answers, but on the other side the people on the defence side knew every question and didn't seem nervous. All of these people had their strengths and weaknesses.

Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides

It was held that failure to direct the jury that a verdict of manslaughter was available Hind’s murder conviction, was merely an error of law and advantageous to Harwood. Accordingly, there was not a miscarriage of justice as the jury were instructed that a conviction of manslaughter was available to Hind if they were not satisfied as to murder due to his negligent handling of the firearm.

Many humans fall under peer pressure for many reasons, scared of what people are going to tell you, think about you, say about you, making someone mad, or disappointed of you. In this case juror 7 fell under peer pressure because he wanted to go

The rule states, " A defendant may be excused from criminal responsibility if at the time of the commission of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of mind, as not to know the nature and the quality of the act he was doing..." (3)

It was held that failure to direct the jury that a verdict of manslaughter was available Hind’s murder conviction, was merely an error of law and advantageous to Harwood. Accordingly, there was not a miscarriage of justice as the jury were instructed that a conviction of manslaughter was

All that being said, if I, as a judge, were to be presented with a murder case where the defendant is accused of killing his

After court proceedings ended and the closing arguments were read, my mother and the other eleven jurors were asked to deliberate in a room to reach a verdict. I asked my mother, how do you feel that you had to make a conscience decision in having to find someone guilty or not guilty.? She said, “given the testimony that was presented, I felt that the facts supported the case and therefore that led me to believe the verdict I reached was fair. This individual faced up to 102 years in prison for the crimes he committed and the fact that he was facing his third strike. Per my mother, the individual was found guilty of his third strike, however my mother said that the sentencing was apart from the