In December of 1674, John Sassamon set off to, allegedly, warn Governor Josiah Winslow that, “the Wampanag sachem (New England Indian hereditary leader) King Philip […] was preparing for war against the English settlers” (p. 1). Unfortunately, Sassamon did not return from his journey and, on January 29, 1675, was found dead in an icy pound with his “hat, a gun, and a brace of ducks” nearby (p. 1). On March 1, 1675, three Wampanoag Indians – Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan – were indicted for Sassamon’s murder (p. 100). Based on New England’s legal system, Tobias, Mattashunnamo, and Wampapaquan did receive a fair trial in that the case was tried in a General Court, and not dealt with privately between the Indian groups as was customary (p. 103).
Smallwood v. State 680 A.2d 512 (MD. 1996) Procedural History: Dwight Ralph Smallwood, the defendant, was charged for rape in the first-degree, robbery with a deadly weapon, reckless endangerment, and assault with intent to murder. The defendant was also charged on a separate indictment for attempted murder in the second degree to his three victims each. The defendant pled guilty on October 11, 1994 to the charges of rape in the first-degree and robbery with a deadly weapon in the Prince George's County's Circuit Court. The circuit court had convicted the defendant to the charges of assault with intent to murder, all three counts of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. The second-degree murder charges were based on his attack on
However, the main affect this decision has on today’s society is the way justice must be carried out in the court of law and the way a person’s rights should be protected even if they’re guilty or
In the January 29, The Stanford Daily editorial Stanford, California, it debates the different essential of the principle of morality and identified Brock Turner had applied a use of force in raping an unconscious woman behind the dumpster. Furthermore, the young man attended Stanford University and participated in his college swim team dreamt of partaking in the Olympus. The victim heartfelt statement during the trial is disregarded because he comes from a class of privilege and is a man. Not to mention, Brock Turner’s father wrote a letter to expressing the universalizability to court saying, “my son’s life shouldn’t be ruined over 20 minutes of action (Dreher,Rod).” Therefore, Aaron Persky who is a California judge implemented an ethical decision that contemplated the clarity around both the specific choice and decision then declared a six months sentenced ruling.
Although she ended up spending months in jail, the arguments against her conviction on the legal terms of a change in jury member were not only heard out, but accepted, resulting in her freedom. (122). Although she faced unideal consequences under the law, as the jail time and fear of execution were certainly detrimental, they were far less severe than those that would have been expected. Compared to other women accused in other areas, Disborough’s legal consequences were notably light. She did, however, face more harsh consequences from her peers and fellow citizens.
It was a dark and windy night in the town of Rowlett, Texas. On June 6th, 1996, Darlie Routier and her sons Devon and Damon Routier were awaken by the tip of a knife. Although it may sound insane, this was all due to a mother who did not have the patience for the children and valued her appearance more. in the opinion of her friends (Montaldo,2015,1). In reality this woman was sentenced to death row because her whole case was faulty.
Native Americans who emigrated from Europe perceived the Indians as a friendly society with whom they dwelt with in harmony. While Native Americans were largely intensive agriculturalists and entrepreneurial in nature, the Indians were hunters and gatherers who earned a livelihood predominantly as nomads. By the 19th century, irrefutable territories i.e. the areas around River Mississippi were under exclusive occupation by the Indians. At the time, different Indian tribes such as the Chickasaws, Creeks, and Cherokees had adapted a sedentary lifestyle and practiced small-scale agriculture. According to the proponents of removal, the Indians were to move westwards into forested lands in order to generate additional space for development through agricultural production (Memorial of the Cherokee Indians).
On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.
Ewell v. Robinson, The Rape Case that Rocked the Nation By: Hailey Ellwanger After hours of jury deliberation, the case of Ewell v. Robinson has reached its conclusion. The jury finding the defendant Tom Robinson guilty of raping Mayella Ewell. This case is a prime example of the injustice that can occur when juries listen to their prejudices instead of the evidence. The two different sides of the story vastly differ, the jury ruling in favor of the Ewell’s.
Youngblood case has great relevance to today’s and future court cases. There are three things that this case has proved to today’s society. The first is that it covered the potential acts of good faith in the police officer, and how the evidence that was claimed to not be stored properly. The defendant blamed the officer and thought they should be accountable for the length of Youngblood’s sentences. It has been proven that even though the evidence is an essential piece to the individual case, the officer should not be held fully responsible for the entire sentence for a mistake.
The New York Conspiracy Trials took place in eighteenth-century America. During this time, there was a lot of paranoia and terror spreading throughout New York City in 1741. At the time, people were put on trial based on false accusations and hearsay, similar to the Salem Witch Trials that took place in seventeenth-century America. The increase of mysterious fires also caused an increase in animosity between the whites and blacks. In addition, the court system failed to take into account that these people could have been innocent until proven guilty-also known as habeas corpus.
Katherine Knight 1 OVERVIEW OF THE CRIME On February 29th of 2000, after finally getting fed up with the constant assaults he endured from his partner; Katherine Knight, John price went to the Scone Magistrates court to take out an apprehended violence order (AVO) against Katherine, in a hope to keep her away from his kids and himself once and for all. Later that night, an unknowing Katherine Knight turned up to John Price’s house and they went on to have sexual intercourse. After this, Knight stabbed Price in his sleep, resulting in Price attempting to run away down the hall, this, however was an unsuccessful attempt and knight ended up stabbing him at-least a further 36 times.
This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,
[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law
In the article entitled ‘Determining the Ratio Decidendi of the Case’ by Arthur L. Goodhart, I underwent a roller coaster-like journey on exploring the science behind the nature of a precedent in English law. Goodhart started with the attempt to explain the full meaning of ratio decidendi in the simplest terms. He referred to Sir John Salmond’s definition in which I have interpreted ratio decidendi as the principle of law that is found in a court decision and possesses the authority to be binding. Ratio decidendi should be distinguished from a judicial decision, as the latter is a wider concept and contains the ratio decidendi, whereas the former is a principle that carries the force of law. In another reference, Professor John Chipman Gray
