John Giglio Case Summary

This morning’s press conference about the new founds dedicated to the Parks and Recreation Department, was held to answer questions about the money and whether or not it was given under false pretenses. The money that was initially given to the Parks and Recreations department was to enforce tighter security in local parks when one of their own employees was injured. Local officials say that early on Saturday morning Jerry Gergich, the employee in question, had sustained multiple injuries including a dislocated shoulder and a black eye, while in a local park feeding the humming bird feeders as part of his job. Mr. Gergich claimed he was mugged by two unknown assailants on Saturday morning when giving his statement to police officers when

Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle 540 U.S. 366 (2003) Parties: State of Maryland, Petitioner / Appellant Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Defendant / Appellee Facts: On the morning of August 7th, 1999 at 3:16 a.m., a Baltimore Police Officer conducted a stop on a passenger car for speeding. As the officer approached the car he noticed it was occupied by three males one of which was the respondent, Joseph Jermaine Pringle located in the front passenger seat. As the driver retrieved the vehicle’s proof of registration for the glove compartment located in front of Pringle, the officer noticed what appeared to be a large amount of currency rolled up in the glove compartment in plain view. After obtaining the driver’s license and registration, the police officer went back to his patrol car and conducted a check for warrants and prior traffic violations.

The case of R. V. Askov began in November 1983 when Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion against Peter Belmont. On top of Extortion they had multiple existing firearm charges to which they severed 6 months in prison for these offences, and were initially denied bail until May 7th, 1984. After being released, their preliminary hearing for the extortion charge was set in early July 1984. The hearing wasn’t completed until September 1984. The actual trial was then set for the first date available, in October 1985, but in turn got delayed until September 1986 2 years later.

The case of Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, is a United States Supreme Court case, which made the protections, granted under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, applicable to all state proceedings. The question, which arose to bring this case to light, was the question of whether or not a person could invoke his or her protections against self-incrimination, under the Fifth Amendment, during state proceedings. In 1959, the petitioner, Malloy, was arrested on a misdemeanor gambling offense in Hartford, Connecticut (Malloy v. Hogan, 1964). Malloy subsequently plead guilty to this offense, and was sentenced to a term in jail of one year, and fined. His sentence was later suspended to 90 days to serve, and two years of probation upon his release.

Even with the absence of a defendant local police and US federal agent entered Week residence without a warrant and seized evidence related to “illegal gambling which they wished to use against Weeks in a criminal gambling crime” (Ingram p.81). Before his trial, “Weeks requested the return of documents that the federal government sought to use against him, however his request was denied and he was eventually partly convicted based on evidence illegally taken from his residence” (Ingram p. 81). However, during his appeal before the United States Supreme Court Weeks argue that his Fourth Amendment rights was violated when federal agents seized the documents that was used as evidence against him in the trial court and the Court agreed and reversed Weeks

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States, by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York and the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney, submits this opposition to defendants’ jointly-filed motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue. The People allege that the defendants, Doug O’Dwyer, Josh Johnston, and James Johnston, were active participants in a criminal conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. The activities of this conspiracy ranged from Syracuse, NY to Toledo, Ohio. Syracuse is within the Northern District of New York, thereby providing a proper basis for venue.

Assistant District Attorney John Norsetter concealed exculpatory evidence for close 11 years. Ralph Armstrong was convicted for rape and murder in 1995. John Norsetter was aware that Armstrong was not guilty of such tarrying crime, however, he remained silence even though he knew Armstrong was innocent. Back in 1995, a woman made a call to the district attorney testifying that Stephen Armstrong, who was Ralph’s cousin was the responsible of the crime. The prosecutor never told defense attorneys of such valuable information.

During the course of police interrogation, Miranda confessed to another serious crime. Ultimately, the courts decided that since Miranda had not been informed of his fifth amendment rights and had not waived them, his confession was not valid. It is because of this case that law enforcement officers today read what is known as

The creation of the United States and the colonies that came before, brought about many legal traditions and precedents. Among these legal traditions and precedents, is an essential precedent present in all interrogation related proceedings and court ones—the Miranda warning. When an individual is detained, they may be subjected to an interrogation by designated officials. During an interrogation certain rights are guaranteed to an individual through the provision of the Bill of Rights to prevent self-incrimination and the historical precedent established before it. However, in certain situations, these rights were not always guaranteed as they should’ve been.

In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession. If the

The Christopher Vaughn case is a popular case in which ballistics and blood spatter aided in solving. Vaughn pleaded not guilty in court, and the defense stuck to the case that it was a murder-suicide case involving his wife. Paul Kish, a blood spatter expert assigned to the case, said that the evidence found at the crime scene did not correlate with Vaughn’s story. Vaughn’s blood was found in many different places; the center console, on his wife’s shorts, on the front and back of her seatbelt, and on the carpet between her shoes. Vaughn’s original statement did not mention the blood present on the seatbelt.

During this trial, President Truman’s innocence was formally debated based on the information presented from the prosecution and defense, and we, the judges, have reached a verdict. We find President Harry S

George Anthony The witness list includes Vasco Degama Thompson, an ex-convict who served time for kidnapping, ABC affiliate WFTV reported. The defense alleges that Thompson had phone conversations with George Anthony on July 14, just days before Caylee was reported missing, Cindy Anthony was the one who reported Caylee missing, in July 2008 Lee Anthony testified about his sister's pregnancy with Caylee, breaking down in tears as he claimed his family ignored her pregnancy, not talking about it until just days before she gave birth in 2005. Tony Lazzaro was seen with Casey the day after she was reported missing Roy Kronk found Caylee Anthony’s remains in a wooded area near the Anthony family home, he saw a white object in the same location

It is fraud, you know it is fraud! What keeps you man?" (Miller 78). Those who were unhappy did not believe the court was protecting the innocent people the way they should. Some members of the community think that the court is not handling the prosecutions correctly and their decisions should be revised.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common