Recommended: Tom Geers federal sentences modification
Albert W. Florence, the petitioner in this case, was initially arrested in 1998 and charged with use of a deadly weapon and obstruction of justice (Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, Opinion, I). He pled guilty to two lesser counts and was ordered to make monthly payments to cover his fine. However, as stated in the Opinion of the Court, he did not keep up with his payments, and a warrant was issued for his arrest in 2003. Florence paid the rest of his fine only days later. However, when he and his wife were pulled over in Burlington County, New Jersey, in 2005, the state trooper’s computer system still had Florence’s warrant, so he arrested and transported him to Burlington County Detention Center.
Second charges for the ranchers are defensive measure, to protect the ranch from an approaching lightning-sparked wildfire during 2006. The Hammond’s case is being going for years, both went under a provision of a federal law punishing terrorism. The ranchers Dwight and Steve Hammond was sentenced twice plus another five years each for an arson charges that both of them were already did a time on the first conviction. Even though that the men’s served their time their case turned out and was far from over. Hammond supporters did not agree on the prosecutor’s final result on the case over the two fires.
The judge of Florida denied his request because under the state laws
Holmes County Assistant Prosecutor F. Christopher Oehl said he did not oppose concurrent sentences only because a guilty plea resulted in more efficient use of county resources, not because Schrock should receive some sort of credit for being similarly motivated in each of the crimes. Thumbing through pages outlining Schrock 's criminal history, Judge Robert Rinfret said, “To be perfectly frank, your record is truly one of the worst I 've seen in my life. It goes on for pages.” Reading through a list of criminal convictions for a variety of property, drug and personal crimes in several Ohio counties, as well as Florida and Washington, Rinfret commented on a seemingly endless pattern of criminal behavior spanning decades.
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) History: Powell v. Alabama was a Supreme Court decision where nine African-American males on a train were accused of raping two young Caucasian-American women. This situation sparked an altercation between the African-American men on the train and a few other white males. After being taken into custody, the Black men were not given the right to counsel upon request, and initially (besides one individual) sentenced to death. Facts: in Scottsboro, Alabama during the year 1932, nine young African-American males better known today as the Scottsboro Boys proceeded to board an empty train that was preparing to travel through Alabama.
I am writing to you to address the Lockhart v. United States case. The issue being tried is, whether or not the mandatory minimum should apply to Lockhart because his previous conviction was of sexual abuse against an adult not a minor or a ward. I choose this case because it is an example of the past affecting the future. In this case Lockhart’s prior crime is affecting how his case is being tried currently. My past has affected my future with every decision I make and things that have happened in my life.
One of the issues currently in the Texas justice system is a miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice is primarily the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime they did not commit. In the film, Unreal Dream: The Michael Morton Story, it is shown that Mr. Morton was given an unfair trial, which led to his conviction for a crime he did not commit. During Mr. Morton’s trial, then-district attorney Ken Anderson had refused to call on chief investigator Don Wood to the witness stand because he did not want to turn over key documents in Mr. Wood’s file to Mr. Morton’s defense lawyer. A specific file that could have helped Mr. Morton’s case was a transcript of a conversation that chief investigator Don Wood had with Mr. Morton’s mother-in-law, Rita Kirkpatrick.
: Petitioner, the State of Arizona, sought review of an order entered by the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, which granted the defendant Pike’s motion to modify his sentence pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32. During the time of the offense, a sentence of one year-life was officially put into place. Pike filed a petition for post-conviction relief to have his sentence altered because he believed that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The trial court granted Pike’s petition and gave him only 15 to 30 years and the state of Arizona filed a petition for review. On July 10, 1975, the defendant Pike was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs for sale which violated the A.R.S. §§ 32-1970(C), 32-1996(C), and 32-1901, and Pike was sentenced to serve a term of not less than 40 nor more than 50 years in the Arizona State Prison.
The prosecution however, wants the judge to give Fogle a maximum sentence to send a message. " These
On August 13, 2013 Pete Yost, a journalist with the Associated Press, published an article titled “Attorney General Eric Holder to Push for Sentencing Reform” informing of Attorney General Eric Holder’s view on the current criminal justice system at the time. Holder believes that the nation’s view of harsher punishments has become less effective as “Mandatory minimum prison sentences” have come to be the norm. (Yost, 2013) A proposed strategy that has been generated would focus the criminal justice systems attention to the “low-level, non-violent drug offenders [and] elderly non-violent offenders”. (Yost, 2013)
Anthony Hinton spoke to us about his time on death row, and the events leading up to arrest, conviction, and being exonerated. He was there to inform us on his experience and the injustice that can come with the death penalty. This eventually leads to him trying to persuade the audience to take action to get rid of the death penalty. As a strong believer of the death penalty, Hinton’s
He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and they affirmed that the Act does not violate any constitutionality challenged the defendant. Facts 1. The defendant committed to serve time for certain crimes and he was prison released in August 1996. 2.
Although, just recently his sentenced was lower to only three months in jail and probation. “The judge feared that a
Today our justice system has a multitude of options when dealing with those who are convicted of offenses. However, many argue that retributive justice is the only real justice there is. This is mainly because its advantage is that it gives criminals the appropriate punishment that they deserve. The goals of this approach are clear and direct. In his book The Little Book of Restorative Justice, Zehr Howard (2002), illustrates that the central focus of retributive justice is offenders getting what they deserve (p. 30).
In February 2002, a missing person case became a heart-melting homicide investigation. This was a test of morals and patients. A Quebec man was arrested and charged in the 2002 death of Adrienne McColl; the 21-year-old's body was found on February 17 in a Alberta field,16 years ago. Recently Gatineau police arrested 49-year-old Stéphane Parent, he is facing a second-degree murder charge in McColl's death. The facts that is evident to the general public in terms of this case are that Parent was fired from his job at the bar just days before McColl’s death, the bar owner reported that someone stole $8,400 from the restaurant.
