None of the following were ever contacted by Appellant’s trial counsel. Had they been, they would have been willing to provide the following information. Mark Bowden provided the undersigned with an affidavit setting forth the following. See Exhibit 4. Bowden was with Appellant the night before and the morning of his September 1982 arrest for kidnapping and other charges. Bowden had been out drinking hard liquor with Appellant late at night and into the morning for three days straight. Appellant was very drunk. Bowden could tell based upon Appellant’s conversation and bizarre behavior that he was not straight or doing well. In the early morning, at a bottle club, Appellant attempted to pick up a woman. When she left with another man, Appellant got unusually upset. Bowden had never seen Appellant so upset about a girl. It did not make sense to Bowden. Appellant’s behavior was totally bizarre; he was not making any sense. Bowden believes that there is no way that Appellant …show more content…
It was totally unplanned, according to Horton. It was just “stupid, drunken behavior by both of us.” The next morning, Horton and Appellant awoke with surprise at what they had done. They would have never stolen the tools if they had not been drunk. They were both arrested for burglary. Horton was sentenced to three years. Horton feels sorry for Appellant. “He was a bad drunk, and he couldn’t handle it well,” according to Horton. “He got into a bad situation he never would have gotten into if he had not been drinking so much.” Multiple codefendants, including Kathy Smith, Charlotte May, and Charles Raab, all provided declarations regarding the 1981 convenience store robbery in Duval county, Florida. See Exhibits 6, 7, 8. All stated that they would have been willing to testify, and would have explained that the 1981 robbery “was the stupid and immature behavior of young people under the
Case Name: U.S. ex rel. Cannon v. Smith Case Citation: 388 F. Supp. 1201 (W.D.N.Y. 1975) Procedural History: State prisoner filed pro se application for writ of habeas corpus to secure his release from imprisonment for rape. The U.S. District Court for the Western Division of New York denied his request and he appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit remanded.
Punzo alleges that Mr. Taylor on an unknown date in July 2015 was aggressively slamming his wall locker and wall locker door. She doesn’t state if there were witnesses present or not or as well when the incident occurred. After interviewing all witnesses, and by Mr. Taylor’s admission, it is evident that an incident occurred. However, there is no clear evidence that the wall locker and wall locker door were aggressively slammed or that it was clearly directed towards Ms. Punzo.
Facts of the Case Ronald Rompilla, Petitioner v. Jeffrey A. Beard was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United Stated in 2005. This case was about the death of James Scalon, whose body was discovered in a bar in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Scalon had been stabbed multiple times and was set on fire. Ronald Rompilla was indicted for murder and other related offenses, and the Commonwealth asked for the potential of the death penalty. Rompilla was found guilty on all counts during the penalty phase.
This proceeding, reference number: t16781211e-23 on December 11, 1678 has two offenders named Nathaniel Russell and John Watson. These two men are being prosecuted for the killing of William Midgley. Both William and Midgley pleaded not guilty in the accounts of murder. They are accused of giving Midgley a “mortal wound on his breast” from which he died days later. There are three witnesses who include: Dorothy Midgley, sister to William Midgley, Elizabeth Symmonds, and Rebeccah Niccols.
The Supreme Court ordered that such “deliberate indifference” to an inmate 's “serious medical needs” was a violation of that inmate 's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This case guaranteed three basic rights: the right to access to care, the right to care that is ordered, and the right to professional medical judgment.
On 10/30/2015, at approximately 2040 hours, Officer Bowman and your affiant were dispatched to 208 East Mount Vernon Street. The caller, Paul Whalen, stated that his brother just called someone to sell and drop off prescription medication. Your affiant arrived at 208 East mount Vernon Street and briefly spoke with Paul. I asked Paul if Jeffrey was at the house and he informed me that he was inside. Paul escorted me inside the living room where I waited for Jeffrey Whalen (defendant) to come downstairs from his bedroom.
On August 4, 1961 Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for stealing money and drinks from a pool house in Florida. When he was arrested he was tried for his crimes. The 6th amendment states that if a defendant is too poor to provide a lawyer than he should be provided one by the Court, but Gideon was not given a lawyer. He was not given a lawyer because it says in the Florida law that lawyers are only provided in big felonies, not misdemeanors. So Gideon should have been provided a lawyer and was not.
In 2014, Jeff Weber brutally attacked a random man on the street with a hammer he had purchased moments before. The victim of the horrific attack was left partially blind and continues to struggles daily with other physical disabilities as a result. This is not Weber’s first brush with the law, he has been convicted of three very similar crimes in the past. However, each time he appeared in court he was found not criminally responsible (NCR). This time his lawyer plans argued the same thing.
MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months. David Lamar Schrock, 43, of 2578 State Route 39, previously pleaded guilty in Holmes County Common Pleas Court to two counts of telephone harassment and one count of menacing by stalking. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed to dismiss two additional counts of telephone harassment and three counts of menacing by stalking. The charges are made more serious because Schrock was convicted, in January 2016,
Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision Madelyn M. Von Wald Department of English, Harrisburg High School Composition 250 Mrs. Jessica Berg May 19, 2023 Richard Bruno Hauptmann Incorrectly Convicted: The Unjust Reasons and Influences Behind This Court Decision A jury condemned an innocent man to his death eighty-six years ago and his guilt still comes into question to this day.
An Opening Your Honor, the opposing counsel, members of the jury, this case is about the unreliability of evidence and an insufficiency to meet the burden of proof that is required to convict Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor with a violation of Nita Liquor Commission Regulation 3.102. This case is to be decided on four issues: 1) Knowledge. Whether the Defendant, Mr. Jones and Cut-Rate Liquor, knew or ought to have known that the customer, Mr. Watkins, was intoxicated? 2) Sale.
Instead of returning to prison by the mandatory deadline, Horton went on a violent crime spree and became a fugitive from the law. While on the run, he allegedly raped a woman multiple times, assaulted her fiancé, and robbed the couple. After being captured by police, a judge berated the Massachusetts judicial system for releasing such a violent prisoner and sentenced Horton to two life terms to be served consecutively plus an additional 85 years behind bars. In conjunction with his prison
So, in many, if not most, of the cases, the accusers and the accused were unacquainted. Boyer and
The Equal Justice Initiative set up by Bryan Stevenson has brought about many changes to the court system and the lives of many people. Stevenson has represented many different people, the majority of which were on death row for unjust reasons. Herbert Richardson, a Vietnam veteran with mental disabilities, was sentenced to death row after a bomb he made accidentally went off killing a child. Another man named Avery Jenkins, a man born with mental disabilities, stabbed a man to death believing the man was a demon trying to kill Avery. Although these cases have similarities and differences, they both show how flawed the judicial system is.