Julius Wolf Case Brief Summary

Even when Michael’s new defense team, through the innocence project, found a crime that was eerily similar to the method of murder and subsequent events to the one that Michael was convicted of, the new prosecutor in Williamson County fought hard to keep DNA testing from taking place, even stating that they objected to the testing now because the defense hadn’t requested it before (Morton, 2014). There was further evidence of ineffectiveness in that the coroner who’d changed his estimated time of death between the autopsy and trial, had come under scrutiny for his findings in this case, as well as several others, with claims of gross errors “including one case where he came to the conclusion that a man who’d been stabbed in the back had committed suicide” (Morton, 2014). This was only one of the many injustices that were committed against Michael Morton throughout his trial. In August of 2006, the defense was finally granted permission to perform DNA testing on the items that had been taken from his wife’s body (Morton, 2014). Although this testing did not reveal any information about the guilty party, it did at least give Michael the knowledge that Chris was not sexually violated before or after her death (Morton,

On Sunday, March 13, 2013, at approximately 1926 hours, I responded to Conyers Police Department, 1194 Scott Street, for a previous Rape incident. I arrived on scene and met with complainant, Victoria Imafidon. Imafidon advised me she was taken advantage of sexually by her pastor at the New Trinity Assemblies. Imafidon stated his name is Emanuel Ayoola Olufowote or Ayoola Michel Kofi Olufowote. Imafidon stated she was sexually in February by Olufowote.

Estate of Sinthasomphone v. City of Milwaukee, 785 F.Supp. 1343 (1992) Facts of the Case: Police were called to a street intersection in Milwaukee May of 1991 to investigate the report of a beaten, naked man. Police arrived and found a young man, Sinthasomphone, beaten and naked who was unable to communicate in any way. Witnesses urged the police to investigate further as they heard Sinthasomphone’s self- proclaimed caretaker, Dahmer, call the victim different names. Dahmer was polite and claimed to know Sinthasomphone stating he often got drunk and acted like this.

On May 23, 1957, three police officers in the city of Cleveland, Ohio knocked on the door of Dolly Mapp and held up a piece of paper that wasn’t the warrant that gave them access inside. The three officers gave Mapp very little information as to why they were there. The real reason they were there was because an anonymous phone tip stated that Virgil Ogletree, a suspect of a recent bombing, was

Bennett decided to leave her daughter alone and unattended so that she could visit her fiancé in San Francisco. When Bennett had come home, she found her daughter dead due to dehydration. When asked what had happened, she first told police that she left her daughter with a babysitter. Later, she made a statement, admitting that she left her infant daughter alone and knew she would die in a few days. Through evidence and witness statements, I was able to conclude that the defendant, Mary Bennett, is guilty of second-degree murder of her six-month old, infant

1. Case Title and Citation ■ Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702,117 S. Ct. 2258,117 S. Ct. 2302; 138 L. Ed. 2d 772 2. Procedural History The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for any individuals to help another person to commit suicide.

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

On balance, the probative value of evidence of Ms. Fitzgerald’s drug use is extremely high and substantially outweighs any risk of either unfair prejudice or undue delay. IV. MS. FITZGERALD’S PRIOR DURG US IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITON ON HEARSAY UNDER RULE

However, this story of Mrs. Stephens being helpless is all the defense has. But how can you, the jury, believe a story from a woman that would lie to doctors, to police,

The case study “The Court Was Appalled” details Tomcik v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections. In 1989, Tomcik was in custody within the Ohio Department of Corrections. She received an initial medical evaluation by a physician, Dr. Evans, employed at the facility she was detained at, including a breast exam, who determined she was healthy. Tomcik conducted her own breast exam and found a lump in her right breast. She made repeated attempts to be re-evaluated and several mistakes were made during the subsequent evaluations she did receive.

The case in which I picked for my Case Report was Robert Clark was convicted in 1982 of rape, abduction, and armed robbery. He has vehemently maintained his innocence for 24 years, contending that an incorrect eyewitness identification led to his conviction. Postconviction DNA testing revealed in November 2005 that Clark was not the criminal. In light of this fresh information, Clark was freed from prison on December 8th, 2005, and his conviction was overturned. Moreover, The victim was kidnapped from a parking lot in East Atlanta, Georgia, on July 30, 1981.

The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.

Mistakes like these are made more than people think. Not giving full information in the courtroom can lead people to fates that they don’t deserve. More than one doctor should have testified for both criminals. The more observations would leave less room for

It It f It frustrates me what Dr. Anna Pou had to go through with the lawsuits of the Memorial Medical Center incident. As Healthcare professionals, being sued for making the rightful decision for the patient and the hospital is unjust. Healthcare professionals like Dr. Pou, have taken the Hippocratic oath, and one of the promises made within that oath is “first, do no harm”. Hospital’s should not be so quick to make such an important decision of pressing charges to their faculty; more trust should be placed in them. In addition, she made it clear her intentions were just to ‘‘help’’ patients ‘‘through their pain,’’ on national television.