Knapp V State Summary

Assignment One 1. In the case of Missouri v. Seibert, the court examines the death of Mrs. Seibert’s son, Johnathon who was mentally handicapped and neglected by his mother. When she noticed her son had died in his bed, she knew he was to be covered in bed sores, and she believed the police would see the neglect. She created a plan with her other two sons and their friends to light the home on fire. This would cover up the neglect, since his body would be burned, and they also left Donald Rector, a mentally ill teenager, in the home to make it seem as if Johnathon was being cared for at that time.

Jack Wilkins was the attorney who represented Virginia. At the time of the trial, he was having IRS and personal problems and was dealing with them as well as the trial. Court records show that two prosecuting attorneys and four trial attendees reported they could smell alcohol on his breath during the trial.

The two attorneys will present their case before a judge. During the trial the CA will introduce Blanco-Garcia’s confession in which he admits killing Vanessa Pham as she drove him to the hospital. The DA will offer a counter argument that his client attacked Pham because he believed that she posed a danger to him. Furthermore, that the PCP his client took earlier that day decreased his mental capability. The CA will reason that the amount of times the defendant stabbed the victim indicates an intent to kill.

On October 16th the United States Supreme Court will hear the arguments concerning the Kansas V. Cheever cirme. Scott Cheever was convicted of murder and drug useage on January 19th 2009. Cheever killed Greenwood County sheriff Matthew Samuels at the residence of the Coopers in Hilltop, Kansas. Sheriff Samuels was going to the Cooper 's residence on a tip to arrest Cheever for illegal drug use, when he arrived he witnessed Cheever and the Cooper’s cooking and ingesting meth. Cheever was shooting at several other officers when they came to try and arrest him as well as try to rescue the injured Samuels.

David Elderidge should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder. Although the defendant claims that he is not guilty, they are wrong because Mr. Elderidge had the motive to kill Mr. Armes, the spatula that killed Mr. Armes had Mr. Elderidge’s fingerprints on it, and Mr. Elderidge was seen at the crime scene by William Warden shortly before Mr. Armes’s death. The first reason in the case was that Mr. Eldridge had a motive to kill Mr. Armes. Sandy Smith testified Mr. Eldridge was in desperate need of money because the bank would repossess his home.

Mr. Mack, was always a friend to Mr. Wallace and his mother. Ladies and Gentleman, please remember that the state must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client killed his friend. The Prosecution evidence will have no connection to my clients. In fact the evidence will show that some of the state’s own witnesses are better suspects. The evidence I will present and the witnesses proves that Mr. David Mack was not the one that committed the crime , and was not involved in the murder of his friend, Mr. Wallace.

There is a publication ban on the names of the accused [father & stepmother] to protect the identity of the boy [son] involved in this case. In the Ontario Provincial Court House in Ottawa, Robert Maranger sentenced the accused [father] to 18 years of imprisonment after Robert Maranger found the accused guilty of torturing his son. Upon sentencing, Robert Maranger made the following statement in court: “I find it extremely difficult to fathom the horrific crime you have committed against your own son. The accused [father] has been convicted of aggravated assault, forcible confinement, failure to provide necessities of life, aggravated sexual assault, and three counts of assault with a weapon.

On July 20, 1958, an elderly couple in Christian County, Kentucky were beaten to death in their home by intruders with a tire iron. Two suspects, Silas Manning and Willie Barker were arrested shortly after the murders and indicted by the grand jury on September 15, 1958. The prosecution believed the case against Manning was stronger; therefore, chose to try Manning first in hopes that once convicted, he would testify against Barker. Manning, of course, was not willing to incriminate himself. At the start of of Manning’s trial on October 23, 1958, the prosecution requested and obtained the first of what would amount to be 16 continuances in Barker’s trial.

Schoenborn not criminally responsible for the murder of his children is undisputable and an appropriate decision based on the evidence and the administration’s objectives. The actus reus of the case cannot be disputed, as the accused confessed to the crime and both the defence and the crown agree that Mr. Schoenborn killed his children. However, the mental element of the crime is arguable, as the possibility of Mr. Schoenborn being in a psychotic state during the time of the offence is high. The evidence to support the fact that he did not form the mens rea of the crime can be derived from his history of mental illness as well as the evidence given by Ms. Clarke that he was a good and caring father. This demonstrates that he greatly cared for his children and their safety but was prone to having psychotic episodes that muddled his mind and led him to commit dangerous and unusual acts.

However, these two men would not have suffered what they never deserved to if there were enough strong evidence their innocence. According to a survey of Ohio State University, there are about 10,000 people in the United States might be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year; also, this survey points out that there are more than half of those wrongfully convicted cases (52.3%) were built on eyewitness misidentification (Tom Spring). Unfortunately, Ronald Cotton was one of victims of those wrongfully convicted cases. The book tells us that after spending 5 minutes of studying mug shot photos, Jennifer, who was a victim of rape, picked Ronald Cotton who was one of the pictured; second, during the lineup, she picked him again without

Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered today for the hearing of Minnie Wright who is unjustly being accused of killing her husband John Wright. The evidence is said to be clearly against her and to be enough to prove her guilty. The truth is that it if we analyze the alleged evidence correctly, it is not clear at all and does not prove anything to accuse Mrs. Wright of murder. Today ladies and gentlemen, we are here to prove that the accused, Minnie Wright, is innocent of murdering her husband John Wright.

The Cyntioa Brown Essay Social workers daily experience cases that are intriguing. However, a social worker presented with a case that involve adolescents and trauma is presented an intricate and prodigious case. The trauma experienced by adolescents in these events put adolescents at a high probability of at-risk behaviors and disconcerting life events. The Cyntioa Brown case is a prime example of how an adolescent who has experienced traumatic life experiences displayed at-risk behaviors associated with disconcerting life events.

They have told you the true story of what happened that fateful night on June 17, 2016. Their testimonies show you that the defendant was not helpless and that she had many opportunities to leave her husband. In addition, their testimonies showed you that the defendant knowingly and premeditatedly murdered her unconscious husband. Unlike the defense, the prosecution and its witnesses have no gain by lying to

In the following days, the defendant was arrested after it was established that he was a participant. The defendant was not in the drugstore when the crime took place and, did not shoot the shopkeeper. The evidence I present will prove to

In the novel MONSTER, written by Walter Dean Myers, tells the story of two men under the age of 25 on trial for felony murder. Steve Harmon is a 16 year old boy who is accused of being the lookout to a robbery that James King, a 22 year old and his friend Bobo Evans were planning. James King is accused of being the one that ripped Alguinaldo Nesbit’s gun from him and used it to shoot and kill Mr.Nesbit. Prosecutor Sandra Petrocelli works to convince the jury that their age isn’t an excuse that a man died at their hands. Kathy O’brien and Asa Briggs both work as the attorneys to prove that one of these men are innocent.