Us Vs Aponte Summary

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

In State v. Fischer, the majority emphasized that the “knowingly” element of possession must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but their holding essentially changes what that threshold is. Due to the need for uniformity among the states and federal government to effectively combat drug abuse at all levels of government, it is important to inquire into how much evidence other states require to infer the knowledge requirement of possession. Under nearly identical circumstances, other states require more evidence to meet the reasonable doubt standard in order to protect innocent people in third-party vehicles which contain drugs. The ruling in Fischer creates a strict liability standard for those who have no knowledge of drugs while riding in a vehicle and essentially eliminates the need for more evidence to create the inference. The circumstantial evidence was insufficient to link Fischer to the drugs and the court was left to speculated Fischer’s mens rea. Thus, Fischer goes against the legislative intent for uniformity and allows convictions based on mere conjecture.

He was arrested with two other individuals and driven to the police station. On the way to the station, the police observed Melendez-Diaz and one of his cohorts making unusual movements in the back seat.” (Kim & Tucci, 2008). When police searched the cruiser 19 plastic bags were found, each filled with a white substance later reported as cocaine as well as $320 on the floor. “Melendez-Diaz argued the point that these lab reports were “testimonial” in nature and that the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment required that he be allowed to cross-examine the analysts who prepared them.” (Kim & Tucci, 2008). The lab reports have ethical and professional guidelines in place to ensure all materials are handled carefully and correctly since this is such a critical job secure measures are in place. “Drug analysis certificates are widely used in place of live testimony to establish the composition, quality, and quantity of drugs introduced as evidence in criminal trials. These certificates are an efficient means of providing juries with information they need, but they do not give defendants the opportunity to cross-examine the analysts about their conclusions.” (Kim & Tucci, 2008).

The Federal District court denied this motion to suppress the block of methamphetamine and prosecuted Bond finding him guilty of conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute. Moreover, Bond challenged the judgment made on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on grounds that the court should have granted his motion to suppress the evidence since it was a violation of his right under the Fourth Amendment and because as per the petitioner, Bond, the officer had manipulated the bag in a way that other passengers would not have. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected his argument and affirmed the lower court’s

Rule: ‘“While in some of the cases cited and relied upon by the Commonwealth lesser amounts of drugs were in issue, there was evidence in addition to the drugs themselves which was susceptible of an inference of the intent to distribute and which was inconsistent with the notion of personal use.’ Commonwealth v. Wooden, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 417, 423–424, 433 N.E.2d 1234 (1982).” Com. v. Ahart, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 413 (2005)

Until the early 20th century, Americans were legally able to obtain drugs such as cocaine, cannabis, and heroin. In fact, these types of drugs were found in medicines and drinks such as Coca-Cola. By the early 1900s, between 250,000-500,000 Americans were addicted to drugs. This rise of addiction in the United States created a growing public concern that addiction would become a more widespread issue, and they felt this problem needed a government solution. For example, in 1875, the first restrictive legislation concerning drugs began in San Francisco when a law was passed to limit the use of opium dens in public indoor establishments. Almost 100 years later, the Controlled Substance Act was passed in 1970. Shortly after, Richard Nixon declared

In the case California v. Carney, Charles Carney was the owner of a motor home that was parked in a public lot. The motor home was kept under surveillance since the agent received prior information about the motor home exchanging marijuana for sex. The agents watched a young male go into the motor home with Carney. After the young male entered the motor home with Carney the shades were closed. After an hour went past the young man finally left the motor home. As the young man exited the motor home the agents followed and stopped him to find out what he was doing in the motor home. He admitted to receiving marijuana in exchange for sex. The agents requested for the young man to go back to the motor home and knock on the door. When Carney opened the door and stepped out the agents entered the motor home. The agents entered Carney’s motor home without a warrant or consent. When the agents entered they discovered marijuana, plastic bags, and a scale. Carney was then taken into custody and the agent took possession of his vehicle. Carney was charged with the possession of

I was pulled over with illegal substances in the back of the vehicle, which I had no idea was in the trunk because it was not my vehicle. I was driving friends back to their dorms because I was acting as designated driver as I was not intoxicated, but they were. Yes, I was arrested, but later proved that I had no attachments to the substances. They saw that I had nothing to do with it because there were names on the containers or whatever the stuff was in, and again it was not my vehicle .

v. Oakes’ case, the presence of the narcotic drug on the accused illustrates a legal challenge of creating a balance on whether the accused intended to traffic the drug or not (Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, 2017). Therefore, due to the proof that the accused possessed the drugs, an assumption emanates of the accused intention of engaging in trafficking such that he may be found guilty. However, the case may favor him if he opposes the assumption using various probabilities (Judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, 2017). The same situation applies to Clarke’s case, by which the basis for his arrest was that he was found at the playground and was in possession of a camera and hence guilty. However, if he opposes the assumption by presenting various probabilities on why he was at the playground and why he was in possession of the camera, then the case might favor

This officer located on the front passenger seat a small purse with a box on it.

Four major drug control laws that were enacted by the federal government since 1900 are the Harrison Act of 1914, the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, the Anti-Drug Abuse of 1986, and the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act (Levinthal, 2012).

The Controlled Substance Act is a federal U.S drug policy that monitors and controls the use, distribution, possession, manufacture, importation of drugs that can be abused.

The USNDA encouraged states to make their respective laws uniform with the federal Narcotic Drug and Import and Export Acts regarding the control, sale, and use of narcotic drugs and suggested the prohibition of cannabis at the state level. The intent of the USNDA was to effectively safeguard and regulate narcotic drugs throughout all of the states. In 1934, the USNDA was disseminated to states. Initially only 9 states adopted the USNDA but a successful propaganda campaign eventually led to all states adopting the USNDA.

Grounded in the Fourth Amendment is the Exclusionary Rule that bars illegally seized evidence. However, modifications or exceptions to the Rule allow, once considered illegally seized evidence, to be now allow in a court. These exceptions have been met with controversy or repudiation, but are crucial to the criminal justice system to protect individual’s constitutional rights and prosecute the guilty. These exceptions include the plain view doctrine, independent source doctrine, inevitable discovery doctrine, and the good faith doctrine. Furthermore, two concepts that are exceptions to the constitutional requirements are the dying declaration and exigent circumstance. Finally, in order to elicit a voluntary confession, officers can legally employ deception tactics to misrepresent information or lie to a suspect to obtain a confession. These exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule will be examined and expounded on to establish their purpose in allowing evidence into a court.

Anti-Substance National Plan of Action- This Act is mainly concerned with the implementation of the