Apprendi Vs New Jersey Case Study

There also was no prosecution witnesses were not crossed examine. The due process was not followed, which lead to a short trial, and a quick verdict. This was the violation of the 5th Amendment because the right to due process.

Although the Styles family was not overjoyed to hear of this sentencing the young defendant is now facing a punishment greater than any legal punishment (excluding the death sentence) the courts could have appointed

People of the State of New York v. Jennifer Jorgensen was criminal court case that went to the Court of Appeals in New York. Judge Pigott gives his/her opinion. Jennifer Jorgensen was 34 weeks on the date of the crime. Defendant was under the influenced of both drugs and alcohol. Jorgensen was driving under the influence on Whiskey Road in Suffolk County.

Case: South Carolina v. Christopher Frank Pittman (Findlaw, 2008) Facts: That Pittman, shot and morality wounded both his grandparents, Joe Frank and Joy Pittman, with a .410 shotgun. Appellant was 12 years old at time of alleged incident, he was abandoned by his mother, and his relationship with his father was abusive. Prior to moving in with grandparents, appellant had been committed to an inpatient facility, where he was on the antidepressant Paxil, soon he was released and permitted to live with grandparents (Findlaw, 2008). .

The Assault of the Delivery Man Regina vs. Mattachioni is a case of assault causing bodily harm. This is a criminal law issue which was dealt with and ruled over by Justice De Filippis. Mr. Mattachioni violated section 267 of the Criminal Code when he punched the complainant Mr. Michael Humphrey. The two men had begun arguing after a parking in an invalid spot.

The majority explained that the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for officers to arrests without a warrant where officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime in the presence of the officer. In this case, the officers undoubtedly concluded that a felony had been committed, and the question for the Court was if the officers had sufficient probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed a crime. According to Chief Justice Rehnquist, that question was a fact dependent investigation as to whether circumstances allowed officers to conclude not only that a crime was committed but to have specific suspicion of Pringle. In the written opinion Justice Rehnquist stated that three men riding in a car where drugs are found, with all three suspects denying possession, affords officers probable cause to conclude that one or all have committed a crime. The Court rejected Pringle’s assertion that the probable cause in this case amounted to “guilt by association,” distinguishing this case from others in which searches of groups had been limited.

On December 5, 1984, in the heart of New Orleans, the lives of two men made a wrong turn towards death. Ray Liuzza, a 34-year-old businessman, was recently promoted to Vice President of a hotel. To celebrate, he enjoyed the night on Bourbon Street. After a night of celebration, Liuzza returned to his apartment and robbed at gunpoint. He begged not to shoot, but the perpetrator shot Liuzza five times.

Abdulrahman Zeitoun and Mumia Abu Jamal were two names I did not know. These two men have both undergone hardships and were both wrongly accused of crimes not committed. The comparison of these cases is hard due to the fact that Zeitoun’s case was not any type of legal and did not follow any type of normal or legal judicial proceedings. Jamal’s case however did follow judicial proceedings “legally”. The first case to point out was the fact that both of these men are innocent in my eyes.

The defendant was considered a habitual offender; fourth offense. He appealed his rights and was awarded a resentence; Docket No. 87874 People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991). Smith case was referenced to People v. Price

He was listed as a respondent to the challenge. At first the court case went through a three judge district court where it ruled that the law was constitutional. It was then appealed to the supreme court where they accepted the case. The supreme court ruled in an unanimous 8-0 decision that the law was unconstitutional.

Scottsboro Argumentative Essay: Rough Draft Crimes happen everyday. Many criminals are incarcerated for their actions. Everyone has a different opinion on certain topics, everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as they know the true facts behind it. During the Scottsboro cases in the 1930’s, there were more people who thought of the accused to be guilty than innocent because of the unjust racism that had become a popular concept. Olen Montgomery was not guilty of raping 2 women.

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.

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.

Upon reading and visiting the locations of the murder of Katrina Suhan in the South Amboy State Vs Thomahl Cook Case, I have had mixed reactions and feelings. Also, upon reading online that the defendant (Cook) had appealed his conviction, several questions were raised. If you have read the Supreme courts documents of Thomahl Cook’s appeal you will notice like I did, that there are multiple discrepancies in the police investigation.

The New Jersey vs T.L.O. case is a controversial case that many people have different opinions about. This case led to many different opinions and thoughts about students privacy and rights at school. A New Jersey school district brought the case to the Supreme Court after the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the search planted on T.L.O. was against the Fourth Amendment. Well, actually the search was not against the Fourth Amendment. New Jersey’s search planted on T.L.O. was not against the Fourth Amendment.