US Vs. Cummings: Case Study

They appealed the ruling. Issues presented or questions of law: (1) The first issue is whether the court had sufficient evidence to prove special agent Althouse was in the line of duty, in accordance with 18U.S.C.&1114. (2) Whether the court erred in improperly admitted evidence of an uncharged misconduct is relevant to this case (3) Whether the Plaintiff erred in cross-examine the codefendant about drug use. Arguments or Objectives of the parties: Plaintiff: The Plaintiff argues that Special Agent Althouse was in a duty status, according to 18 U.S.C. &1114, when carjacked.

To: Junior Associate From: Supervising Attorney Re: DC v. Blake Mr. Jonathan Blake, a new client of the firm, recently requested our legal services in a criminal matter. Mr. Blake was recently arrested for possession of a controlled substance by the Metropolitan Police Department. According to Mr. Blake, the facts are as follows: Jessie Smith and his wife are the co-owners of a residence at 3630 16th St. NW, Washington DC, 20015.

The main facts of the case California v. Greenwood are that in the beginning of 1984, the police of Laguna Beach, California had information that gave them reason to believe that a certain person, Billy Greenwood, was dealing drugs. A police officer named Jenny Stracner told the garbage collectors to bring the trash from Greenwood’s residence to the police station so that they could go through the garbage to find if there was evidence of drug dealing. They did. They then obtained a warrant to search the house, and found more evidence. The police then arrested Greenwood.

United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

District Court on motions to dismiss held; complainant’s parents held liability of officers and city of the boys return to his assailant: motion granted. Main issue: Did the officers discriminate against the boy because he

Main issue: Did Bozeman have knowledge of the harassment, and should Bozeman’s knowledge of McLeod’s harassment of Williamson be imputed to the City for purposes of holding that it knew or should have known of the harassment and therefore can be held liable for negligently failing to take prompt remedial action? 6. Court Deciding: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 7. Decision: The decision of the District Court was affirmed.

This led to circumstantial evidence being admitted and being the basis for

The Majority of the court 's decision includes McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella, Charron and Rothstein JJ. The court had to decide in this case whether the seriousness of an offence or knowing that one might be a threat to public safety can be a justification to stop anyone without having solid evidence against them. The court stated that both Mr. Clayton and Mr. Farmer were guilty of carrying concealed weapons in a public place. The police had the right to search them even though their car didn’t match the description described by the 911 caller because the officers have to be consistent with their duty towards public safety and act in accordance to the seriousness of the

Even the presiding judge for the federal courts asked why would a veteran officer throw away his life for cash and camcorder as stated in ("3 KCK officers plead guilty - KCTV5," 2012) There are several possible reasons why these officers decided to steal these items. One reason why the officers stole these items is simply peer pressure I would say all three officers agreed to take the items for their personal gain. Another reason why I believe

Some felt as if this case was justified others felt it was not. This case was unjustified because it was an racial crime , officer ignored proper procedure however; the only threat was being a 12 year old with a toy gun. Thus case was a racial crime because of how he was identified

The fiber evidence presented in this case was so overwhelming and simply was the driving force leading to Wayne Williams conviction. I do not believe the prosecution would have been able to obtain the same results without it. The credibility of the FBI forensics investigators and their reputable crime lab made for excellent testimony concerning the fiber evidence at trail, which the defense was simply ill prepared to counter attack its merits (The Atlanta, n.d.). Other evidence was presented in this case, and much of this evidence while certainly impactful on the case and to members of the jury, this evidence alone without the fiber evidence would surely not have held up to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

U.S. v Fields In the case of Abel Fields v. The United States, Abel Fields was convicted for falsely claiming that he received a Purple Heart Award for bravery. However, he had never served in the military, and he had never actually received a military award. Fields was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, stating that it is illegal to make false claims about receiving many types of military awards. Punishment includes fines and imprisonment.

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.

US v. Lopez was a decision handed down by the US Supreme Court in 1995. The case was significant because it was the first ruling to set limits on Congress's power under the Commerce Claus in the Constitution since Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Lopez, a student was caught with an unloaded weapon on school grounds that he was allegedly selling. He was arrested under the Gun-Free Zone law. Lopez argued that this law was unconstitutional as it blocked interstate commerce.

But it ended up with him not being charged and that led to protest. That proves that Starr will protect her friends from any danger and or