Summary Of Arizona V. Fulminante Case Brief

Case Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003). Parties: Maryland, Petitioner Joseph Jermaine Pringle, Respondent Facts: A car was stopped y a Police officer for speeding. The Officer had probable cause to search the vehicle and when he did he found money and cocaine. The three occupants of the car were arrested for denying ownership. After signing a written confession Pringle was sentenced by the State Court for possession and intention of distribution of cocaine.

As the defendant knew his act was wrong, thus knew what he was doing and therefore, was guilty except

Miranda v. Arizona In 1966 Ernest Miranda was arrested at his home and taken to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. After a 2 hour interrogation he was found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He confessed all of this without being read his rights. The police did not read him his rights that are stated in the 5th amendment.

Ryker did not confess voluntarily under Kansas case law. Under this case law, to determine voluntariness

They argued it over and over that he could have asked for a lawyer knowing he had and was denied one. Also his confession was freely given not knowing he had to right to be silent. (Greenwood,

On April 18, 1977, Leonard Peltier was found guilty of two accounts of first degree murder. He was sentenced to serve two consecutive terms of life imprisonment for the murders of two FBI agents. Despite the jury’s unanimous verdict, many individuals believe that Peltier is a victim of social injustice. The evidence used against Peltier is in many cases circumstantial and does not provide solid evidence to convict him. Whether or not he was responsible for the deaths of the two FBI agents, his case deserves to be viewed from other perspectives in addition to personal bias.

He gave the court noticeable different answers under oath. Due to the inconstancy of the priest’s testimony, his testimony will be discarded and inadmissible. When determining the outcome and severity of your sentencing, I must consider both aggravating and mitigating factors.

Arizona case is an important case that deals with Miranda given a confession without being stated his rights to him in a way that he could understand them. Miranda was one of many accused individuals that gave a statement without having his rights being read to him. The U.S. Supreme Court set aside Miranda?s confession because it was inquired through an improper interrogation. Arizona retried Miranda, and the confession was not listed as evidence against him, but his wife gave a statement only after he sued for the custody of his daughter. Then he was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison.

Leonard Peltier’s Innocence Leonard Peltier was a Native American man arrested for supposedly killing two FBI agents on Pine Ridge Reservation of South Dakota. There have been many debates about the integrity of the court cases and the lawfulness of Peltier’s arrest. Many FBI supporters would claim that there were eyewitness accounts and various other pieces of material evidence that show that Peltier was the culprit. However, Peltier supporters would rebut the evidence, saying that the eyewitness accounts aren’t legitimate and the court decision was politically influenced. I will consider both sides of the argument, and show that Peltier’s innocence is evident because the evidence provided against Peltier was falsified and the FBI used disingenuous methods in charging Peltier for murder.

In my court case in 1963 Ernesto Arturo Miranda is being accused of kidnapping, and raping. Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, saying that the police had gotten his confession unconstitutionally. The U.S Supreme Court review the case in 1966. Chief Justice Earl Warren, said that the confession could not be used as evidence because the evidence was gotten unconstitutionally. Miranda was not told that he had rights like the fifth and sixth amendment so he did not know, that is why the confession was not used as evidence.

Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite

I. FACTUAL HISTORY On August 16, 2011, Defendant pled guilty for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. There were no disputed facts at the time of the sentencing. A Presentence Investigation Report was conducted, by the Probation Office, to identify ameliorating

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

After a twelve-hour interrogation, Brenton Butler confessed to the murder of Mary Ann Stephens. A key claim made by the defense attorneys in this case was that this was a false confession, and after reaching a verdict of not guilty, the jury clearly agreed. The factors that led the false confession were laid out in a scene during the documentary. Instead of using the interview to discover the truth, the interrogators specifically sought out a confession from the suspect. They began the interrogation with the presumption that Brenton Butler was guilty.

Facts A lady had an abortion performed through back alley means, and had medical complications that resulted in her being in the hospital and questioned by police. She gave them the name of the petitioner, Julius Wolf. The police then followed up on the lead and entered his office without a search warrant and seized items as evidence, one of which was a list of patients. The police then used that evidence to gather more testimony against Wolf.