COME NOW your Defendants, IVAN DUANE WILLIAMS and DENNIS RAY DAVIS, JR., by counsel, and hereby move to continue the currently scheduled trial date of December 12-14, 2017 pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and in support thereof, state as follows:
1. Defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to sex traffic minors, and three counts of sex trafficking minors.
2. Discovery in this matter is voluminous. Numerous law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Henrico County Police, and Fairfax County Police have been investigating this case for over a year and over multiple jurisdictions, including various locations in Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia.
…show more content…
Furthermore, as a recent case development, it appears that co-defendant Chelsea Canterbury is scheduled to enter a guilty plea on November 30, and will testify against Defendants Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis. Just as with the other alleged co-conspirators or victims who are expected to testify at trial, Ms. Canterbury's credibility will be a key issue at trial. Therefore, to provide effective representation, counsel for the remaining defendants must now thoroughly investigate Ms. Canterbury before trial. This additional requirement for trial preparation has come with relatively little time before the currently scheduled trial …show more content…
The government objects to this motion, however, whether to grant a motion for a continuance is within the broad discretion of the district court. See, e.g. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 662-66 (1984); Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983); and United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). It is in the interests of justice that the motion be granted in that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis request a continuance of their trial date so that their attorneys may be fully prepared for their trials. Defendants are facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, with a maximum of life in prison, if convicted. Therefore, the ends of justice and the effective assistance of counsel is served by a continuance. WHEREFORE, Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis request that this Honorable Court grant the motion and continue to the trial date to a date in the latter part of February 2018, or in the alternative, a hearing on the
The trial court denied these motions and the statements were used at trial. The jury found petitioner guilty of murder and was sentence to a 24-year prison term. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he had not “knowingly and intelligently” waived his 6th amendment right to counsel before he gave his uncounseled post indictment
Tuan Taruselli-Stormes Professor Monica Swaner English 102 February 20, 2017 A Rhetorical Analysis of “State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel” October 16, 2002, P.J. Haselton filed court documents from the case of Kipland Philip Kinkel. This was a trial based on the 111 years and 8 months’ life term sentence Kinkel had received form an earlier trial for four counts of murder and 26 counts of attempted murder. Through this trial, they recapped the original trial, and deliberated over the evidence presented by Mr. Kinkel’s lawyers. Judge Haselton entertained the courts with their premises for grounds of inhumane violations of article I, section 15, and Article I, section 16, of the Oregon State Constitution.
We appreciate you taking an interest in Tom Geers, and are thankful that you are willing to work with us to try to help him. We request that his case be re-opened. We want his present Florida consecutive sentence CHANGED to a concurrent sentence with his present Federal sentence. We believe Tom’s sentence is extreme.
When this trial ends, I know you will see it in your heart that my client is innocent of all the charges. Thank
Gideon v. Wainwright was a Supreme Court case in 1963 where the court ruled that the courts had to provide counsel to the party being charged if they could not afford one. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. He could not afford an attorney and the court denied his request for them to provide him one since it was not a capital offense, in that time courts were not required to provide an attorney to a party on trail if the crime was not a capital offense. Gideon was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. He originally sent his request that his trail was unfair to the Florida Supreme Court; it was denied.
In 1803 the Supreme Court which was led by a great man by the name of John Marshall chose a controversial case to take on that is still examined today by many. It is one of the most famous cases and goes by the name of Marbury vs Madsion. Now the question was whether a demonstration offensive to the constitution can turn into the tradition that must be abided by is an inquiry profoundly intriguing to the United States; however, not of an unpredictability proportioned to its advantage. It appears to be just important to perceive certain standards, expected to have been long and settled. The first argument was that the people have the original right to establish a constitution for now and, for the future generations.
The trial judge admits the sentence was imposed; however, the report received included seven felonies and three misdemeanors. The judge agreed Smith’s sentence deemed appropriate and determined his sentencing will deter other youths as well as protecting the community. Despite the fact that Smith is already incarcerated the judge ruled Smith will serve his time concurrently with a prior sentencing. Facts are the panel believes the defendant is entitled to a resentencing. The defendant expunged records was viewed at the time of presentence and his sentence was determined because of his previous criminal history.
Dred Scott was a dedicated man who stood strongly for his declaration of independence. Dred Scott was an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owner, Dr. John Emerson, to Free states and territories with his wife Harriet Scott and later attempted to sue for his own and families freedom. The Case is known as Dred Scott vs. Sandford or the “Dred Scott Decision.” Dred Scott was born around 1795, in Southampton County, Virginia. His parents were slaves so as a child he was raised into a home of slavery.
In this election year a Supreme Court position opened up following the unfortunate death of justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama, has the ability to nominate a replacement as this is one of his presidential powers. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, as Antonin Scalia’s replacement. After the nomination, Merrick Garland can take the position if the senate approve of the nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block a hearing that would be held to nominate the nominee.
America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are here because one person in this courtroom decided to take law into her own hands. The defendant, Mrs. Dominique Stephens, murdered the man that she vowed to love. This sole act by the defendant is violation of all morals and her husband’s right to live. Afterwards, she even felt guilty about this violation of justice and called the cops on herself, and she later signed a written statement stating that she is guilty of the murder of Mr. Donovan Stephens. Then the defendant later recanted this statement and said that she only killed Mr. Stephens in self defense.
State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.
A key to providing appropriate punishment across a wide range of cases is the transfer process. In some states, judges decide whether to grant the state’s request to move a juvenile to adult court; in others, removal is automatic for certain specified crimes, usually murder. This is how we separate out those few crimes committed by juveniles deserving of adult trial and punishment. Bound over to be tried as an adult on crimes that are seemingly to be committed by adults, but yet are carried out by juvenile offenders, also.
Should Prison Records Be Expunged After Sentence is Served? When considering expunging a prisoner’s record there should be an abundance of factors that follows the final decision of whether or not to expunge a criminal record. Factors included should be what crime the prisoner committed, whether the person shows true remorse for the crime they committed, and if the benefits outweigh the risk of expunging their record. Criminals with lower level offenses have better chances of getting their records.
MOTION TO DISMISS RULE TO SHOW CAUSE OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ADVISEMENT HEARING COME NOW Vernida R. Chaney, Esq. and enter her appearance on behalf of the defendant, Georgia Sunlee Hazel, and move this Honorable Court to dismiss the rule to show against the defendant on the grounds that the defendant completed the balance of her community service hours. See Exhibit A (attached). In alternative, the defendant, through counsel, moves the this Honorable Court to continue the advisement hearing scheduled for November 5, 2015 on the grounds that counsel has a conflict and is unavailable to attend the hearing on behalf of the defendant. If the Court grants the motion to continue, counsel is available on the following dates: