US 707 Fare Case Summary

The case involved an individual by the name of Danny Escobedo, who was arrested on January 19, 1960, for the murder of his brother-in-law. Escobedo was arrested without a warrant and interrogated; he did not make any statement to the police and was released after contacting his lawyer. On January 30, Benedict DiGerlando, told the police about Escobedo’s involvement in the crime that Escobedo “had fired the fatal shots” (Escobedo v. Illinois- Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court, 1999, pg.2). He was later arrested a second time and taken to the police headquarters. Soon enough Escobedo requested to have “advice from my lawyer”

None of the following were ever contacted by Appellant’s trial counsel. Had they been, they would have been willing to provide the following information. Mark Bowden provided the undersigned with an affidavit setting forth the following. See Exhibit 4. Bowden was with Appellant the night before and the morning of his September 1982 arrest for kidnapping and other charges.

Maxton) of the minor in custody. He meets the mother at her apartment then claims that he want to help the mother get her child released from juvenile detention for a sexual encounter with the mother (Lynch T., 2013). The mother had sexual intercourse with Officer Steele believing that he would get the child released from the juvenile detention center, but later finds out that it was all a lie (Lynch T., 2013). The prosecutor learn about the aspect of this case and immediately push for the minor release with all charges

Therefore, when there is a refusal for a counsel, then it needs to be stated succinctly in the record (Gagnon v. Scarpelli: 411 U.S. 778 (1973). (n.d.). Nevertheless, although the state is not required provide a counsel in all cases, but regardless if they are an indigent parolee or probationer, they are in need of a counsel to represent their case (The Findlaw-United States Supreme Court case and opinions, (n.d.). In the meanwhile, he agreed to the terms of the probation and a Travel Permit was issued to allow him to live in Illinois, in which he would be supervised. Therefore, on August 5, 1965, he was to report the Adult Probation Department of Cook County, Illinois.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 25, 2011, the People filed a felony complaint charging defendant Michael Meyers with the following crimes: Count 1 – Assault with Semiautomatic Firearm in violation of Penal Code § 245(b), Count 2 – Assault with Deadly Weapon/Force like to Cause GBI in violation of Penal Code § 245(a)(1), Count 3 – Burglary, Burglary in the First Degree in violation of Penal Code § 459, Count 4 – Child Endangerment in violation of Penal Code § 273a(a), and Count 5 – Making a Criminal Threat in violation of Penal Code § 422. The Defendant was arraigned on the complaint at which time was advised of the constitutional and statutory rights. Defendant pled not guilty to all charges and denies allegations, and did not waive time. Bail was set at $100,000.

Rachel Ortiz- Wynne Ms. Bonner Forensic Science Date assigned: 4 October 2017 Date due: 17 October 2017 Miranda v. Arizona The case of Miranda versus the state of Arizona started out when Ernesto Miranda was arrested. The crime committed was an armed robbery, kidnap and rape of an 18 year old girl.

Unbeknownst to the respondent, his sister found an attorney to represent him. The attorney contacted the police and informed them of his representation, and the police responded that they were not questioning him at that time. Therefore, the police did not inform the respondent that he had counsel, and they misinformed his counsel concerning the timing of their interrogation. • J.D.B v. North Carolina- a North Carolina boy identified as J.D.B. was 13-year-old special education student in 2005 when the police showed up at his school to question him about a string of neighborhood burglaries. The police had learned that the boy was in possession of a digital camera that had been reported stolen.

Later he got 20 to 30 years in prison for assaulting and armed robbery. Later his lawyer appealed to the United States Supreme Court of Arizona asking if he was given the rights while being arrested. On June 13, 1966 their appeal was accepted and the court agreed on hearing him because as it turns out he was interrogated for 2 hours without knowing that he has the right to remain silent (5th Amendment) (United States Courts, 2017), and the right for a lawyer (6th Amendment). “Miranda v. Arizona” was called that because the police made a mistake and it was the police of Arizona which made it go farther to the Supreme Court which is bigger that's why the state counts. (United States Courts, 2014).This is why the case began.

Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year old juvenile from Missouri whom in 1993 along with two of his friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned to rob and murder Shirley Crook in her home (Roper v. Simmons, 2004). On the night the crime was to be committed, Tessmer pulled out of the plan, and Simmons and Benjamin would continue on as planned. The two broke into the Ms. Crook’s home, robbed her, tied her up, covered up her eyes, then drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge. During the trial, evidence, videotaped reenactment and testimony outlining the premeditated plan, allowed for the jury to easily convict Simmons of the crime. Even though Simmons had no previous criminal record and was a minor at the time the crime was committed,

The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

A Fourth major court case was Breed v. Jones because it prevents juveniles of becoming victims to double jeopardy (being tried more than once for the same type of crime) in the court system. A fifth major court case was McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, In re Terry, and In re Barbara Burrus. This case made an impact on the treatment of juveniles today because jury trials of juveniles are not constitutionally needed. • How are status offenders handled in the juvenile system?

Issue: Kent was unaware of his case's transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court of D.C. to the state's regular district court. Was the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction valid? Would the individual transferred to the adult court still have rights that were applicable in juvenile court? Did the juvenile court conduct a full investigation for Kent? Important information might have been revealed had an investigation been performed.

Kent had an earlier criminal history with the juvenile court. He was arrested at the age of fourteen for burglary and robbery, and in result he was put on probation under the guidance of his single mother. In accordance to Kent’s arrest at age sixteen, his attorney had

The juvenile justice system has made numerous of ethical issues when managing juvenile offenders. The issue with the juvenile justice system is the laws and rules that govern it. It has led to years of controversial debate over the ethical dilemmas of the juvenile corrections system, and how they work with youth offenders. The number of minors entering the juvenile justice system is increasing every month. The reasons why the juvenile justice system faces ethical dilemmas is important and needs to be addressed: (1) a vast proportion of juveniles are being tried and prosecuted as adults; (2) the psychological maturation of the juvenile to fully comprehend the justice system; and (3) the factors that contribute to minorities being adjudicated in the juvenile justice system are more likely than White offenders.

As a predisposition writer in a juvenile setting the probation officer will be tasked with the important process of writing a report for the judge to take into consideration. A Predisposition report consists of the client’s complete prior history. The probation officer that writes these reports is required to gather all the information that they feel will be necessary to make a proper judgment on the juvenile. Probation officers will collect information on the juveniles past history with law enforcement, family problems, mental health issues, what they client feels are their needs and wants, and numerous other issues that may arise during the meeting. Once this information is gathered and concluded to be factual the probation officer will