Legal Citation of the Case R v Lopez [2014] NSWSC 287 (21 March 2014) Overview Carlos Lopez has been found not guilty of the murder his mother, stepfather and brother by reason of mental illness. He was also found not guilty of the two counts of animal cruelty, causing death, against the family’s pet Chihuahuas.
The appellant and various other members of the conspiracy were then arrested. As the trial was conducted, the appellant’s conviction was inevitable. There was overwhelming prosecution evidence of his guilt, to which the appellant added admissions on oath in the course of giving evidence at his trial. However, he would not have done so but for the prosecution evidence; a perusal of the material portion of the trial record reveals that the appellant’s purpose in giving evidence was to demonstrate how his involvement was connected to the activities of law enforcement officials and their agents.
Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite
The Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Disclaimer By: LawInfo When faced with criminal charges, a defendant often has one simple goal. That is, to minimize the potential penalty. Of course, being found innocent at trial, and being aquitted, is the best way to avoid jail time and other penalties.
Presentation of Evidence: In order to try to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution will first present its case. This evidence may include witnesses, records, and forensic data. After then, the defence will get a chance to question the witnesses for the prosecution. Defense's Case:
This shows that evidence is an important role in pleading someone guilty. When you convict someone of a crime, make sure you know the evidence and information on the case before sentencing
A plea-bargaining is when a prosecutor offers a reduced charge or decrease the number of charge. The defendant come to an agreement with the prosecutor to plea guilty to the sentence they are on trial. The defendant pleads guilty to the crime they are being changed with in order to avoid a trail and avoid more severe sentence. Plea bargaining consents of a judge that authorize the tail which accepts or denies the defendants guilty plea. A defense attorney is who advocates for the defendant to protect the right of the individual.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
Janet Vargas SOC 370 Pros and Cons of Plea Bargaining Many criminal cases are resolved outside the court in which they will have both sides come to an agreement. An agreement made in a criminal case between a prosecutor and its defendant, before reaching a trial is a plea bargain. The prosecutor offers an opportunity to the defendant to plead guilty. By agreeing to plead guilty to a crime the defendant would in exchange get a prosecutor’s promise to convince the judge to reduce the sentence.
In the United States court system, many criminal cases are not resolved in a timely manner. One of the more common ways in which many cases are resolved quickly is through plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is defined as an agreement between defense attorneys and prosecutors. (Spohn & Hemmens, 2012) Alschuler (1979) describes plea bargaining as the self-conviction act of a defendant. Today, approximately ninety percent of defendants plead guilty because of plea bargaining.
• Plea-bargaining weakens the criminal justice system with the concept that if all cases went to trial the court system would be unable to support the workload. This is a factor that can be disputed by jurisdictions that have ban plea bargaining and continued to operate appropriately. Plea-bargaining is known as the agreement in a criminal court proceeding that is made between a defendant and a prosecutor. Plea bargains typically involve a lesser sentence in return for an omission of wrongdoing. Plea bargains do not forsake the criminal justice system, however they do allow for a speedy exit strategy for prosecutors.
People plead guilty for crimes that are not committed by them to avoid trial, but by doing so the right decision wasn’t made.
Upon a critical analysis of the Indian laws relating to the protection against double jeopardy as articulated in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, it construes that autrefois acquit is a statutory right under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, whereas autrefois convict is a fundamental right under Article 20(2). This implies that if a person is acquitted of a crime, he can be retried constituting only a partial protection against double jeopardy as per Article 20 (2). The critique of Section 300 of Cr. PC is that a new charge cannot be framed against a person based on the same facts. Thus, it is the duty of the police officer who files the charge sheet to ensure that all the charges against an accused are framed properly and it is the responsibility of the magistrate to ensure there are no errors in the charge sheet.
whoever shall be proved to have belonged, either before or after the passing of this Act, to any gang of Thugs, either within or without the Territories of the East India Company, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, with hard labour. 2. And ... every person accused of the offence ... may be tried by any court, which would have been competent to try him, if his offence had been commit- ted within the Zillah where that Court sits, any thing to the contrary, in any Regulation contained,
If our judicial system still believes that someone is innocent until proven guilty, then Adnan has to be innocent, because they did not prove him