The court case of State of Nebraska v. Gary E. Heitman deals with the conviction of Heitman on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault on a minor. “Heitman contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict and that he was entrapped” (Heitman p.1) while the court concluded that “there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction” (Heitman p.1) and “further determined that the district court was not clearly wrong in finding that Heitman was predisposed to commit the crime and that thus, the district court was correct in rejecting his entrapment defense.” (Heitman p.1). I agree with the court’s rejection of the entrapment defense based upon things discussed in other entrapment cases and ideas brought up by
Gideon v. Wainwright( 1963, 9-0 Vote Decision) Facts of the Case/Question Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony because he broke into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court, Gideon requested that the court appoint a lawyer for him because he did not have one. However, according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to a needy defendant in capital cases, so the court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself at the trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison.
"The State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson (Case number 1056770, 2005)", was an interesting case. This case was interesting because Laci was a very beautiful and seemingly young, friendly, and happily pregnant woman with lots of friends. Her husband, although attractive, had a kind of macho tough guy womanizer type of persona about himself. It is hard to believe or fathom someone being so cruel as to kill their pregnant wife, regardless of their marital problems. Laci came up missing on December 24, of 2002, the day before Christmas.
Although current law does not distinctly define TBIs according to mens rea or diminished capacity, a possible defense that may appropriately be applied to criminal cases is the law as it relates to mitigating circumstances in sentencing. The Florida case of Cooper v. State (1999) is just one of very few cases in the country that seemingly acknowledges the fact that recurrent or traumatic head injuries may be a mitigating factor to criminal behavior. The defendant, Albert Cooper, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, armed robbery with a firearm, and armed burglary with a firearm after him and his partner, Tivan Johnson, killed the owner of a local pawnshop, Charles Barker, after robbing the location on May 25, 1991. The court ultimately found Mr. Cooper guilty as charged, which made him eligible to receive
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
Context and Constitutional Question Gregg v. Georgia is a court case that started with the “prosecution for a double murder committed in the course of a robbery”(Coenen, 2004). It was a court case among many others involving the issue of the death penalty. The constitutional question that gave Gregg v. Georgia importance was whether “the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment?”(Gregg v. Georgia). The case was basically about if the death penalty violates the 8th and 14th amendment of the constitution because it can be viewed as a punishment that is too cruel or severe, as killing someone over a crime is unusual to some extent. This was the main question of the
The Emmett Till case should be taught in 2018 as not just a murder that triggered the civil rights movement, but as a case that still reflects the injustices that African American men face in the American Justice system. Not only should Emmitt till’s murder reflect the injustices in America today, but retaught since new information has recently surfaced which shows a different side to the whole case. Emmett Till was murdered on August 28, 1955 in Money, Mississippi and found beaten and floating in the local river. Emmett Till was murdered by Carolyn Bryant’s husband Roy Bryant and her brother-in-law Milam Bryant.
THE INTRODUCTION Good afternoon, my name is Lucas Kunstleben, and it is my honor to represent the State of Maycomb and to serve as a prosecutor on this crucial case. On August 26th, 1936, the defendant in this matter lied under oath and on the stand in the case of Mayella Ewell v. Tom Robinson. The defendant lied about the events that took place on the night of August 26, 1936, between her and Tom Robinson. At the end of this case, and after you have heard all the evidence, we are confident you will return a guilty verdict on all charges of lying under oath.
Trayvon Martin was only seventeen years old when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on February 26, 2012 in Sanford, Florida. Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend prior to the shooting, not partaking in any sort of criminal activity. He was carrying a bag of Skittles in his pocket, not a weapon of any kind. Despite this, Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in “self-defense”. He was charged with second-degree murder, but found not guilty.
The Union not able to come up with a practical agreement to settle the moral dilemma of slavery. Each side was so set in their way of thinking that they were unwilling to recognize the “other point of view”. A silent era concerning slavery was going out of date and the tensions rose with expansion westward. As a time of silence concerning slavery was ending, tensions were skyrocketing.
1) Name and citation of case (5%) Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) 2) Judicial history (5%) Payne was the defendant, who was convicted by the trial court. Payne was convicted for two counts of first degree murder and one count for assault in the first degree of attempted murder. Payne was sentenced to death. Payne appealed the sentence to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Kirk L. Odom, a convicted Washington D.C. man who served 22 years in prison, for a crime that Odom did not commit. Back in 1981, Kirk L. Odom was found guilty by a Supreme Court Judge, for the rape and robbery of a woman, in her apartment, in Washington D.C.. According to the Washington Post, since 2009 he is one of 5 of rape or murder convicts, that have been vacated based on erroneous forensics and testimony by elite FBI hair experts. Also, The Washington Post gives statistics and years, for rape and murder convictions, and who goes about trying to solve them. When the evidence proves the convicted guilty, like Kirk, the inmate should be exonerated and compensated for his time.
Injustice The Scottsboro Case shed light on the racial practices expressed in law that made a great impact on the legal system today. The actual victims of the Case did not receive a fair trial due to the color of their skin. The ones who played the victims planned the crime, and their stories made no sense. But like many of the trials during the time it wasn’t based on the actual evidence that was found,or even the defendants ' stories.
Andrew Jackson’s Effect on the Cherokee Indians and the Trail of Tears In March of 1832, the case of Worcester v. Georgia was ruled in the U.S. Supreme Court. This case nullified a Georgia law that was contrived to control the way that the U.S. citizens accessed the Cherokee country. Chief Justice John Marshall believed that only the federal government should be allowed to do that.
Georgia is a court case that relates to capital punishment. A black adult man named William Henry Furman was sentenced to the death penalty after an attempt to rob a house. Of course he was not successful in robbing the house but instead shot the homeowner. After being sentenced, Furman appealed and took his case to the Supreme Court. He said that this violated the 14th amendment which states all citizens are treated equally no matter what race they are.
