Sgt. Gurniak ordered that P should be arrested for violating the order of protection causing P to threaten MOS and spit at them. P was placed in the back of a RMP and during the drive to the precinct P continued to threaten and yell at MOS. P also kicked the RMP’s rear passenger-side window causing the window’s glass to shatter and strike MOS De La Cruz in the face. Then, P also attempted to break the rear driver’s side window.
The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the
Good morning I am Luke Thomsen, I am representing the State of Maycomb on a case about Sheriff Heck Tate’s poor investigation. On two counts we will first hear about his poor investigation in the Tom Robinson V, Mayella Ewell case and in the death of Bob Ewell for we never found out who truly murdered Bob Ewell for Sheriff Heck was too lazy to document it. THE THEME AND THEORY
Describe the circumstances that caused police to pull Wayne Williams over? The police were staking out the bridges because the last victim was dumped in the river, and he was in his car driving slowly across the bridge after the police heard a splash that sounded like a body. Why does he think he was convicted?
Sgt. Taylor is trusted to make low-level routine decisions. He has received a letter of reprimand in which bad decision contributed to the incident. (Report not turned in and lack of directly supervising the officer). He received a second letter of reprimand for failure to follow instructions, (having officers turn in equipment combined with not turning in report, and checking on sex offender).
Johnson's suit against Paris and LCC is based on several theories. With respect to LCC, plaintiff alleges that LCC breached its college-student contract with plaintiff by arbitrarily and in bad faith denying him his diploma, LCC tortuously interfered with plaintiff's contract with Paris, LCC misused the confidential information that Paris divulged thereby violating the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 91 1/2, par. 801 et seq.) , LCC invaded plaintiff's privacy by publicly accusing him of homosexuality.
They decided to go to three district courts to
It confirms the already assumed. During the court trial, Dr. Jones was asked “From your conversations and examination of Perry Edward Smith, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew right from wrong at the time of the offense involved in this action?” (296). The doctor replies with a simple no. I strongly disagree what the doctor decides to reply. He claims he has no opinion because of Perry having no opinion.
The commanding officer at the scene had an ethical duty to stop what was occurring that night, but choose not to do so. The next ethical decision by leadership that was obvious was the lack of planning by the emergency operations organization. Chief Gates and Mayor Bradley were not prepared for the non-guilty verdicts of the officer’s trials. Thus, they did not prepare for what was about to happen to their city. The failure to not call one emergency operations organization meeting during the trial was a very poor
Then, I would identify the concepts and values within Alexander’s case. The value of justice is important in this case, not only because police are obligated to bring the right person to justice, but also because it would be morally wrong for someone innocent to serve the time of a guilty individual. The value of lawfulness is at hand, because all the proper rules and regulations must be kept in place to ensure that police are being fair and upholding “innocence until proven guilty” for each suspect. Furthermore, the value of freedom is important because if convicted of a crime one didn’t commit, time would have to be served, and that is freedom taken away from the individual. A number of dilemmas are at play in Malcom Alexander’s case, from whether or not police should have incorporated Alexander as part of their case to whether or not police should have conducted multiple identification procedures with the witness.
This essay will consider whether Robert Solomon should receive a Vye direction at the end of his trial. This will be approached from the defence position and therefore will identify the arguments to support Robert having a Vye direction. Vye directions were established in the case of Vye and are given by the judge when summing up to the jury. There are two limbs to this direction. The first limb relates to the defendant’s credibility and is only available to defendants who made pre-trial statements or give evidence.
From a well educated background, his qualifications verify his interpretation to Martin Guerre’s case. Not only was he present for the trial, he was one of the ten judges overseeing the case. He was also a skilled lawyer and professor at a university. He
• There is an altercation between Officer Wilson and Mr. Brown, who is standing at the window of the vehicle. Officer Wilson fires two shots from inside the vehicle, one likely grazing Mr. Brown’s thumb, and the other missing him. Mr. Brown runs east. Officer Wilson pursues him on foot. Mr. Brown stops and turns toward Officer Wilson, who also stops.
Furthermore, this observation offered a perspective on the progression and resolution of the situation, enabling the court to effectively evaluate the legitimacy of the allegations levied against the defendant (Sweeney, 2020). Moreover, the testimonies provided by these witnesses played a crucial role in assessing the credibility of the accused, considering the presented
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?
