United States v. Morrison was a supreme court case about violence against women. In 1944 while enrolled at Virginia polytechnic institute, Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford sexually assaulted her. Both male students were varsity football players. In 1995 Christy filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech 's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty and Crawford was not.
Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.
On November 24, 1973 Troy Leon Gregg was arrested for the robbery and murder of Fred Edward Simmons and Bob Durwood Moore. He killed the two men with a firearm, a .25-caliber automatic pistol after traveling with the two for quite some time. The bodies of the men were found in a drainage ditch and had wounds that pertained to the right temple and the back of the head. He was trailed and found guilty of both charges. The parties that were involved in the case were Gregg and the state of Georgia.
The defense again relied upon the conclusion of Dr. Evan Nelson that Atkins was “mildly mentally retarded” and asserted that because he was “mentally retarded,” he could not be sentenced to death. The State’s witness, Dr. Stanton Samenow, stated that Atkins possessed “at least average intelligence.” The State also introduced victim impact evidence and proved two aggravating circumstances: future dangerousness and “vileness of the offense.” The future dangerousness was based on Atkins’ prior felony convictions as well as the testimony of four previous robbery and assault victims.
a. Writing the Discussion Section If you have thoroughly outlined your discussion section, writing it should be relatively easy. Because you have already spent time on the organization of your outline, you can focus on making the memo easy to read by adding transitional phrases and clear language. The Discussion section for the hypothetical memo follows. Note how it parallels the outline. The author transcribed the outline into prose, added transitional phrases, and changed the citations to short form where necessary.
The suspect I will be talking about is Lydell Grant. Lydell Grant, a Houston man, was wrongfully convicted in 2012 for the murder of Aaron Scheerhoorn, who was fatally stabbed outside a Houston bar in 2010. Despite Grant's consistent claims of innocence and the lack of physical evidence linking him to the crime, six eyewitnesses identified him as the murderer, leading to his conviction and a life sentence. On December 10, 2010 Police were called to a club called Club Blur. Once police arrived at the club they found Aaron Scheerhoorn dead after being stabbed seven different times.
With this story it looked as though it was self defense and that all charges were going to be dropped or so the citizens of Savannah thought. Nobody knew the severity of the charges until Spencer Lawton, the plaintiff's lawyer, presented his evidence in a secret session with the grand jury. Five days before the hearing was set to take place, “
People v. Smith, 437 Mich 293, 470 NW2D 70, 78 (1991) addresses public policy conflicts and balance as it relates to the juvenile justice process (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). The issue presented in People v. Smith (1991) by the Supreme Court of Michigan is whether the inclusion in the presentence investigative report of an expunged juvenile record, in this case of defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, requires, under MCR 5.913, presently MCR 5.925(E), that Smith be resentenced (People v. Smith, 1991). The issue involved was that Smith argued that he should be resentenced due to the inclusion of the pre-sentence investigative report of his previously expunged juvenile record. In People v. Smith (1991), it is stated that, “The purpose of the court rule,
Facts Riley was stopped for driving on expired license plates by San Diego police officer. The police officer found out Riley’s license was also expired, which resulted in the impounding of the his vehicle. During the inventory of the vehicle, officers found firearms stashed in a sock under his car’s hood a. People v. Riley, No. D059840, 2013 WL 475242, at *1 (Cal.
In the state of Maryland on July 29th, 1986 Kirk Noble Bloodsworth was brought to trial. The crimes that were said to be committed were; first degree murder, first degree rape, and first degree sexual offense. The defendants in the case were the following; Julia Doyle Bernhardt and George E. Burns, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for appellant. Valerie V. Cloutier, Asst.
It was Ricky Franklin Smith fourth offense, in which he was known as a habitual offender. He pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering. During his hearing in the Court of Appeals, Smith suggested that he deserve a resentence due to the fact his charges was base upon his expunged juvenile criminal record. The Court of Appeals referred back to the case in People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) that suggested that in pursuant to MCR 5.913 when a juvenile record is expunged it cannot be used in a sentencing. Whereas, People v. Jones 173 Mich App 341, 343;433 NW2d 829 (1988) states that an expunged juvenile record can be included in an investigation report and in a sentencing(People v. Smith, 2017).
The case of The State v. Justin Ross Harris has received an immense amount of national news attention over the past two years. In June of 2014, Mr. Harris was traveling to work early one morning with his son, Cooper Harris. The father and son stopped by Chick-fil-a for breakfast and Mr. Harris allegedly forgot to drop Cooper off at daycare. Mr. Harris continued traveling to work, missing the turn for daycare, and arrived at work around nine o’clock a.m. that Wednesday morning. He arrived at work and exited his vehicle, leaving his son in his car seat for the entire work day.
Most states implement expunged laws; at the age of twenty-seven juveniles can have their record expunged. The purpose of the law is to allow juveniles become adults without having a criminal record. In the case of Docket No. 105833 People v. Smith, 448 NW2d 794, Michigan Supreme Court (1989), during the presentence investigation into Ricky Franklin Smith he was indicted on charges as an adolescent. Smith plead guilty to breaking and entering; the career criminal past decisions resulted in his incarceration.
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
People start distrusting and thinking he was the cause of everything. “The man was defending himself from thugs,” said Tison’s neighbor […]. “I've known Garrett for twenty-five years. If he says those boys had a gun, they had a gun.” A fellow police officer, who asked to remain anonymous, claims the indictment is nothing more than a publicity stunt at Tison’s expense.