Quality Of Judicial Performance

Quality of Judicial Performance
The quality of judicial performance Quality of judicial performance The performance of judges can be measured, generally speaking, by the ability
of the judges. There are some methods used to measure the performances of judges for this purpose. These include a review of the past performance
of the judges. Here, the judges are gauged according to citations to prior judgments, affirmation of the judges' by higher courts and the ability to
produce and put pressure. The judges may also be measured by their native talents and experiences whereby issues of the number of years a particular
judge has been working at the lower courts and the quality of the law school they might have attended. Another measure for the quality of judges is
depreciating ability; some judges' performance may decline due to cognitive impairments, while others may gain experience over time. These measures
are geared towards ensuring that a high quality of judicial performance is guaranteed and maintained (Choi et al, 2011). Absolute immunity Absolute
immunity involves protection of government officials from legal action. This protection though does not include the intentional or malicious
engagement in criminal acts by the officer. For example, in the case of King v. Simpson (1999), the parole board members were given absolute
immunity to deny or grant parole (Alarid & Carmen, 2010). Qualified immunity This type of immunity focuses more on the executive officers and
exonerates any wrong–doing by the
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Indian Tribe And Indian Tribes
Tribal sovereignty which states in Maynard v Narrangansett Indian Tribe, 798 F Supp 94 (DRI, 1992) that Indian Tribes are distinct and independent
communities that retain their natural rights of the Indian Tribe. Indian Tribes and their members are immune from common–law suits. Indian Tribes
members are exempt from suits unless congress has authorized the suit.
ISSUE
1.Can a member of the Chippewa Indian Tribe have their property, on public school grounds, searched?
2.Can the county search warrant be valid to search a Reservation and can the sheriffs legally search such property?
3.Can police search beyond the property issued in the warrant?
4.Did the county sheriffs have any valid evidence to charge the Weathers?
5.Can Isabella County be held liable for wrongful arrest?
6.Can the police be held accountable for destroying artifacts?
BRIEF ANSWER
Songaa of the Chippewa Indian Tribe is allowed to be searched in public schools because she is off the reservation, and the school has a legal right to
search her. The county search warrant is not valid with the tribal police because county search warrants do not comply with the tribal court. Another
issue with the current warrant is that the police did not have any invitation to come onto the property. Therefore, the Isabella county warrant is not
valid and the police officers cannot legally search the Weathers' home. If the warrant was valid, the police could not search beyond Songaa's bedroom
unless the police had probable

Summary: Strickland V. Washington
The main players inside the courtroom will be presented through this article by underscoring some cases influenced by these people. The main
players in the courtroom are the prosecutor, the defense lawyer and the judge. This article will also use the due process control model and the crime
control model in evaluating the judicial process. The standards set by Strickland v. Washington will also be clarified by describing it and its effect on
courtroom cases.
Prosecutors have a big responsibility within the criminal justice system. They act as the legal representatives of the government when cases are filed
against people who violated the law. It is essential for prosecutors to ensure that the evidence is sufficient before they bring the case ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The legal procedures in protecting the Sixth Amendment rights of the defendant were not followed by the prosecutor when the evidence was
withheld. The standards and procedures in the court system meant to safeguard the rights of individuals were also not followed by the prosecutor.
The due process model was not followed by the defense lawyer in the case of Missouri vs. Frye since they did not follow the proper process that will
minimize or eliminate mistakes and unfairness. In the case of the judge, the legal process was not utilized objectively when the judgment was passed on
the persons accused of a crime. The judge did not pay full attention to all the information in the cases brought to the courtroom. The information would
have protected innocent individuals from getting involved whenever improper decisions were made by the

Mr. Smith And His Burglary Charges
I still mostly agree with my initial post on Mr. Smith and his burglary charges, but I challenge my idea that justice is not served because he only
pleaded guilty to two counts. Since the evidence is circumstantial and the defendant has no prior record, the plea deal does serve justice. Just because
you believe a person to be guilty of X amount of crimes does not mean he is guilty. If the evidence is shaky and the defendant is clean, justice is
determined through what is presented. I also noted in the initial post that the defendant could have burglarized more homes, but not caught. This is a
stretch and should never come into the decision process, unless evidence can be provided. With regards to Mr. Smith, he might seem to be getting...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Yes, he is high figure in the organization, but there are many other ways of going after the mob bosses without giving Jimmy immunity. Couldn't
Jimmy be used to gain more information from the mob bosses? For example, offer him a less severe sentence, but make him wear a wire or some
sort. He might have information to give, but make it earn it. Murdering someone should not give you a free pass. Feedback to the Mr. Smith case:
I still come back to the idea of the circumstantial evince and that the prosecution should try the case in court or offer him a better plea for the
victims. Yes, resources are better used if the case is pleaded out, but I still believe you cannot over look how many homes he burglarized. I believe
a pattern has evolved and he could be more dangerous than perceived. I would agree that if Mr. Smith had something to offer, the plea deal for
guilty on two counts could be fine. It all comes down to how many homes he burglarized. Twenty is a lot and shows more than I believe is being
taken into account. To Jimmy and the mob bosses, I agree with the statement that the government is at fault for not finding evidence to convict higher
up mob bosses and giving Jimmy immunity. If the government cannot put together a case against the mob bosses without giving immunity to a killer,
than the mob bosses haven't done anything illegal or they are so good at what they do, they do not leave a trace. Why believe a killer? He is probably
going to say anything to save

Women 's Rights And Responsibilities
In order to exercise legal rights and responsibilities, one must be a legal person. However, the legal person cannot be easily defined especially when
one must consider the feminine gender. Although it is a fact that women are people with the same legal rights and responsibilities as men, several
aspects of what is understood to be legal personhood conflicts with the unique characteristics of the female gender such as pregnancy. This reflects the
deeply seated tradition of patriarchy within the law that is the largest concern of liberal feminists. It is not to be said that the law has remained
unchanged over the course of history but rather that it has changed in a way that only includes women as 'men' and not as women. This is mostly ...
In order to be considered a legal person, there are physical and conceptual requirements. The physical requirement to be a legal person is to be
'born alive'. In R v Poulton (1832) 5 C & P 329 at 330, it is said that the fetus becomes a legal person when 'the whole body is brought into the world.'
Conceptually, a legal person must be '...an enclosed, bounded and sovereign being...' and a '...rational person...' who can '...exercise autonomy over his
own person...' In other words; they must be capable of self–government. It is difficult to define legal personhood narrowly due to its interpretation
being dependent on context and purpose but this is generally a universally accepted definition.
The issue of the role in women within leLiberal feminists believe that '...female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that
blocks women's entrance to and success in the so–called public world...' and they work hard to emphasize the equality of men and women through
political and legal reform.
It cannot be denied that there has been significant progression of the recognition of women as legal persons throughout the last century. Previous to the
changes in the early 20th Century, women were purposely excluded from the concept of a legal person due to assumptions of their feminine
disposition, which is often described as temperamental, and their publicly perceived lack of capacity for

The Prosecutor And The Defense: A Case Study
The Prosecutor and the Defense The ethics are really important in the criminal justice fields, so prosecutors and attorneys are not the exception when
following certain ethic guidelines. Furthermore, these ethics differentiate between these two positions. In regards the prosecutor's discretion is really
important (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). However, discretion plays a bigger role when it comes to death penalty, so the decision remains fair
(Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). In addition, now in current times both the defense and prosecution are required to remain in high discretion; especially
when providing interviews to the news in notoriety cases (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). Although in some cases the judges have discover that
prosecutors have provided with too much information to the general public (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014).... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Although there are some claims that say that lawyer put more effort in each case than a public attorney that only receives a minimum reward
(Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). Another of the claims that is made is that public defenders provide more experience. Furthermore, they acquire more
knowledge in criminal cases, because they are more informed in changes in the laws (Neubauer & Fradella, 2014). In addition, public defenders are
known for their alacrity in solving cases, as opposed to private attorneys that take more time in solving a case (Neubauer & Fradella,

Immunity in the U.S. Court Essay
The right to not incriminate one's self is established within the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person...shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" (Davenport, 2006, P. 87). People may plead the fifth as a means of refusing to answer
questions about alleged criminal activities. The right to not self incriminate, is a fundamental right meant to protect individuals from being forced into
giving evidence that could be used against one's self. This concept against self incrimination extended to forced confessions due to Miranda v. Arizona.
In the Miranda case, the Supreme Court decided that police have an obligation to inform a suspect to his rights under Constitution.... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
In some cases this works in two ways. For example, if a defendant gives testimony about a murder cases and says were they threw the gun, police
cannot be asked to search for the weapon to be used as evidence. However, if by chance someone independent by the government finds the weapon and
turns it in, the weapon can be used as evidence against the defendant (Davenport, 2006). The other form of Immunity is transactional immunity, which
is "absolute protection against prosecution for any event or transaction about which a witness is compelled to give testimony or furnish evidence"
(Neubauer, 2011, p. 466). This form of immunity is said to be the preferred form of immunity by defendants, because the government will be barred
from prosecuting the defendant for a crime they were granted immunity (Davenport, 2006). Use immunity grants less protection than transactional
immunity in that witnesses may not refuse the government's offer of immunity. In this case, accepting immunity is forced and is not a choice. In the
case Kastigar v. United States, the belief was that Charles Joseph Kastigar would use the Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination. The
issued an order granting immunity but Kastigar and Stewart refused to testify (Kastigar v. United States – Case Background, 2009). The claim was that
"only transactional immunity, which was not granted, would

Spousal Compellability? Support for Marriage or Complete Myth
I confirm that this assessment is all my own work and the source of any information and/or material I have used (including the internet) has been fully
identified and properly acknowledged as set out in the School of Law guidelines.
Evaluate R v Pearce [2002] 1 Cr App R 39 and the wider law on spousal compellability.
All witnesses who are competent are also compellable1, unless one considers the compellability of spouses. Whilst married partners are compellable to
testify on behalf of their spouse2, no such universal compellability arises for the prosecution. The testimonial privilege was once an undefeatable rule
of the common law3 unless it involved violence against the other spouse4. Arguably, the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Finally, it was argued in Pearce that such a distinction violated a cohabitant's Article 824 rights but Kennedy LJ was, rightly, very dismissive of such an
argument25. It was recognised that had the exemption been widened it would have been difficult to "see where, logically, the widening should end"26.
Establishing a criterion to be met before cohabitants could enjoy testimonial immunity would only create more arbitrary and discriminatory lines.
Whilst the issue has not proven insurmountable in other jurisdictions27, a similar but more extensive approach, as compounded by Brabyn, which
advocates for a larger breadth of non–compellable witnesses with an exclusionary procedure28, whilst removing some of the distinctions created by
S.80 would render the harmony of two persons justiciable29.
Such an approach has been considered beyond of the powers of a criminal court and potentially could violate the Article 8 rights which the arguments
of extension are predicated on. Arguably, verifying those who are entitled to the spousal privilege by the objective standard ofmarriage or civil
partnership presents a more principled approach30.
However, the court's preference in its objectivity has created an anomalous position; it is arguable that any extension of testimonial immunity is
unwarranted as all citizens have an inviolable right to marry under Article 1231. It was held in R v Registrar General32 that the

What Is The Role Of States In The United States
The role of States Every state is a unique entity within the US; population demographic case–mix, socioeconomic status, geography and laws and
guidelines differ across states. Some states perform better than others in general and the opioid epidemic follows the same rule. But why? Researchers
focused on uncovering these opioid related inconsistencies; their findings indicate that multiple factors, other than physicians as described so far, are
explanatory for this variation. They found statistically significant results explaining opioid prescriptions and deaths related to race, where
non–Hispanic whites accounted for more opioids and overdose deaths; specific disease prevalence, particularly diabetes and arthritis; geographical...
Only 29 states require physicians by law to consult a PDPM database before prescribing an opioid, whereas some others do not.34, 35 Some states,
like Kentucky and Florida, have posed s stricter than recommended 3–days–limit on opioid prescriptions.36 In 2017, all 50 states and the District of
Columbia passed legislation to improve naloxone access.37 Out of those, 40 states and the District of Columbia passed the Good Samaritan Law that
protects individuals from being arrested, charged and/or prosecuted when they report overdosing.37 The first noticeable difference here is that 10 states
did not pass this law. The second is that when overviewing the general characteristics of this law, the Good Samaritan Law differs across these 40 states
as well. For example, Michigan provides immunity from charges, arrest and prosecution if a person is seeking medical assistance;38 Alabama on the
other hand provides immunity only for prosecution.39 Finally, some researchers studied concluded that state requirements for Continuous Medical
Education training and specifically Controlled Substance Continuous Medical Education training for physicians could improve knowledge and practice
and reduce opioid–related morbidity and mortality.27,40 However, only a few

Giglio V. Us Case Study
Giglio V. United States Giglio (defendant) and Taliento (co
–defendant) were thought to be committing several forgeries. The prosecution presented
Taliento with immunity in trade of his testimony against Giglio. During the trial, Taliento said that the prosecution never offered leniency for his
testimony. Giglio was ultimately convicted. After filing an appeal, Giglio learned of Taliento's offer from the prosecution. The Supreme Court held that
the prosecution violated the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause when it failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense, even if the
individual prosecutors are unaware of the undisclosed information. Taliento testified that the prosecution had not promised him immunity from
prosecution in

Conviction In Criminal Cases
Houston, your thread is beautifully written. Prosecuting attorneys are the governments' advocate, thus they do enjoy absolute immunity from civil law
suits. For example if a defendant has a conviction overturned on appeal, they cannot sue the prosecutor for malpractice. The objective of the
prosecution in a criminal case is "not that the prosecution shall win the case, but that justice shall be done, in addition to reducing crime (Neubauer &
Fradella, 2014. p. 167.). Due to human imperfection, a prosecutors' agenda may reflect a need for a high conviction rate which could be the result of
unethical behavior including but not limited to minimizing justice (e.g., plea bargains) with an attitude that some justice is better than none. In regards

The Equal Protection
Holding the state law prohibiting non–white males from sitting on a jury was a violation of equal protection.
The purpose of the equal protection clause was to provide protection for the civil rights of blacks. This law clearly discriminates against blacks.
Furthermore, any classification of jurors by race would be unconsitutional, whether it be nationality based or otherwise. That is not to say that the state
may not prescribe qualification for its jurors, it just may not do so with respect to race. [But age, sex, and education was okay. This is the first exercise
of racial protection under the equal protection clause.]
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
October Term, 1879
STRAUDER v.
WEST VIRGINIA.
[100 U.S. 303]
ERROR to the Supreme ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the court.
The plaintiff in error, a colored man, was indicated for murder in the Circuit Court of Ohio County, in West Virginia, on the 20th of October, 1874, and
upon trial was convicted and sentenced. The record was then removed to the Supreme Court of the State, and there the judgment of the Circuit Court
was affirmed.
The present case is a writ of error to that court, and it is now, in substance, averred that at the trial in the State court the defendant (now plaintiff in
error) was denied rights to which he was entitled under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
In the Circuit Court of the State, before the trial of the indictment was commenced, the defendant presented his petition, verified by his oath, praying
for a removal of the cause into the Circuit Court of the United States, assigning, as ground for the removal, that 'by virtue of the laws of the State of

West Virginia no colored man was eligible to be a member of the grandjury or to serve on a petit jury in the State; that white men are so eligible, and
that by reason of his being a colored man and having been a slave, he had reason to believe, and did believe, he could not have the full and equal
benefit of all laws and proceedings in the State of West Virginia for the security of his person as is enjoyed by white citizens, and that he had less chance

Current Legal Status Of Assisted Suicide Essay
The current legal status of assisted suicide in England and Wales is 'inadequate and incoherent' . If assisted suicide were legalised, strict safeguards
must be in place, to avoid new legislation echoing the uncertain law currently in place and prevent it from going down a slippery slope of potential
abuse.
1.2 Current Law on Assisted Suicide in England and Wales
Under the current law, it is an offence under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961 , for a person to carry out an act, capable of encouraging or assisting
the suicide or attempted suicide of another individual with the intention of doing so/ to do so ; the maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment; it is
triable on indictment. All forms of euthanasia, including assisted suicide are illegal in England and Wales at present. It appears from case law and
previous unsuccessful Bills that the legal position of assisted suicide is unlikely to change in the immediate near future; this has not stopped
prosecutors from bending the rules, creating incoherent legal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Previous cases governed under common law indicate there is a consistent approach with the current legal regulation, when prosecuting assisted
suicide; the factors support the previous decisions of R v Adams , R v Cox and R v Moor , which both involved decisions motivated by compassion
and intent. The current law is that a doctor's intention must not be to end life but to alleviate the patient's suffering. It is strictly prohibited for a
doctor or nurse to assist or encourage suicide and the policy now suggests prosecution is more likely if the suspect was acting in the medical
profession, and the victim was in their care

Validity And Credibility Of Research In A Profession
Research is vital for the development of sound policy decisions within any profession. The research process provides an opportunity to gain new
knowledge and a broader understanding of issues through the collecting, analyzing and the evaluating data. Congress realized there was little data
available to determine the nation's problem with crime or the criminal justice efforts to deal with these issues. (President Crime Commission Report,
1967). The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (NILECJ), a federal agency, created to sponsor criminal justiceresearch.
Investigators when conducting research face the challenges of validity and credibility of research methods, ethical issues, and gaining the trust of
research participants ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A researcher must protect participants from potential harms of embarrassment, distress, loss of employment and damage to one's financial standing.
Guidelines should be designed to minimize information about research subjects and should be removed or destroyed as soon as possible. If there is a
need to collect identifying data the Institution Review Board will ensure there are necessary precautions to maintain confidentiality. Researchers must
be mindful that privacy is about people and confidentiality is about data. Consequently, privacy is in the eye of the participant (Office of Research
Report, 2015). According to Wolfgang, researchers have been known to catalog their data to avoid recording the names of participants and victims or
other identifying information about specific crimes unless it is absolutely vital to research. Files maintained without these details are less useful to law
enforcement (Wolfgang,

Criminal Procedure Essay
Criminal Procedure Policy Savannah Slorp CJA/353 August 23, 2010 Mr. Krauser Abstract Criminal procedures are safeguards against the
indiscriminate application of criminal laws and the wanton treatment of suspected criminals. Specifically, they are designed to enforce the
constitutional rights of criminal suspects and defendants, beginning with initial police contact and continuing through arrest, investigation, trial,
sentencing, and appeals. The main constitutional provisions regarding criminal procedure can be found in Amendments IV, V, VI, and XIV to the U.S.
Constitution. The Supreme Court for the first time began to extend the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to exercises of power by state and
local governments.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
SECTION 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of
persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and
Vice–President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature
thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty–one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged,
except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis or representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such
male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty–one years of age in such State. SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or Elector of President and Vice–President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as
an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or

The Three Reasons And Rationales For The Exclusionary Rule
The following are the three justifications and their rationales for the exclusionary rule: Constitutional rights, judicial integrity and deterrence. Because
of the Constitutional rights the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights wouldn't mean anything without the exclusion. In regards to
judicial integrity the courts shouldn't contribute in unconstitutional behavior by approving it. To ensure deterrence in negative police conduct steps in
prevention of unconstitutional conduct by government officers are taken. The justification that the U.S. Supreme Court uses today for the
exclusionary rule is, The reasonable, good faith exception, created by U.S. v. Leon (1984), allows the government to use evidence obtained from
searches based on unlawful search if officers honestly and reasonably believed they were lawful. The law was created to prevent misconduct. The rule
has no deterrent effect if officers believed they were doing everything legitimately. There are six exceptions to the exclusionary rule, but I am going to
name five. They are: Collateral use, independent source, cross–examination, attenuation of the taint of constitutional conduct, and inevitable discovery.
Whenever the use of evidence is obtained illegally it is admissible in all non–trial settings. This is Collateral use. Examples would be "bail hearings,
preliminary hearings, grand jury proceedings, habeas corpus proceedings." The use of illegally obtained evidence is used by the

The Case And Remedies Of An Arkansas Capital Murder Case
In an Arkansas capital murder prosecution that had resulted in conviction and sentences of death based on the killing of four members of a family
defense counsel learned after the conviction had been reversed that a key prosecution witness, the defendant's son, who testified against his father
implicating him in the murders at trial, has also given prosecutors a statement in which he claimed responsibility for the crimes and exculpated his
father. Defense counsel moved to dismiss the prosecution on the ground of prosecutorial misconduct, but the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected the
prior jeopardy claim and permitting the retrial to proceed, while referring the prosecutors involved to the court's Committee on Professional Conduct for
consideration of possible ethical violations. On retrial, the defendant was again convicted, although his son did not testify against him at this
proceeding. Issues of prosecutorial misconduct in this case and remedies for misconduct are examined in this article.
INTRODUCTION: THE BILLY DALE GREEN CAPITALMURDER CASE
When Billy Dale Green was first tried and convicted of the capital murders of four members of an Arkansas family and sentenced to death in an
Arkansas circuit court in 2004, the prosecution's key witness was his son, Chad. Having pleaded guilty in return for a 20 year sentence, Chad testified
that his father had smoked methamphetamine together before his father killed the couple and their two children, apparently as a result

Criminal Law and Procedure Week 5 Homework
Week 5 Homework Jonah Colombo Devry UniversityAuthor Note This paper is being submitted August 11, 2013 for Professor Sheryl Prichard's
Criminal Law and Procedure course at Devry University by Jonah Colombo. Week 5 Homework 1. Page 355 in the text: Questions for Thought and
Discussion: Questions 5, 9, and 11 Question 5: Based on the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Chicago v. Morales, what protections of the
individual do you think must be included in an ordinance proscribing loitering? An individual's protection against illegal search and seizure must be
preserved. Just because a group of young people are loitering (gathering with no specific purpose) does not mean they have given up their protection
from being... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
when he/she is responding to a call with lights on or just being on duty. This would render the law constitutionally vague and hence void it until
subsequent versions elaborated on the who, what and where of what was restricted. Question 7: Despite the wording of most statutes proscribing the
offense of escape, courts increasingly require the prosecution to prove the defendant's specific intent to avoid lawful confinement. Are courts
justified in imposing such a requirement on the statutory law? Yes. Statutory laws (written law) are subservient to federal law but the burden of
proof is placed on the prosecution. Proving a person willfully attempted to evade lawful confinement would have to be proven if the charge was filed
against the defendant. 3. Page 380 in the text: Problems for Discussion and Solution: Question 4 Question 4: The state charges Larcen Inmatio with
escape from prison. The court appoints a public defender to represent him. You are assigned to investigate the case and report your findings to the
public defender. Your investigation reveals that Inmatio was convicted of burglary of a dwelling and was serving the second year of a five
–year
sentence in the state prison. He complained to the warden that another inmate had sexually molested him and requested transfer to another prison or at
least another cell block. After confirming that an inmate in Inmatio's cell block had molested him on one

Article Analysis of 'Former Sheriff Guilty in Successor's...
Describe Dilemma: What was the ethical dilemma the professional faced? Given the information provided in the article, Former Sheriff Guilty in
Successor's Killing the most profound ethical dilemma faced by the involved criminal justice professionals is the decision to develop a plea for
the actual perpetrators of the crime that allowed immunity upon testifying against the mastermind of the plot to kill the newly elected sheriff.
Given the history of the ousted sheriff, Sidney Dorsey there is a clear sense that the prosecution and judges involved developed the opinion that
despite the involvement of hired assassins the most dangerous criminal was in fact Dorsey. In so doing they to some degree sacrificed their cases
against the assassins by allowing them to testify with impunity after facing acquittals in their own murder trials. Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, Melvin
Walker and David Ramsey, all admitted to taking part in the killing but were offered deals that allowed all to walk away with little to no
consequences. Describe Options Realized: What options did the professional identify to resolve the dilemma? The options the criminal justice
professionals faced included at least two scenarios, one where they held the hired assassins accountable in trial at the risk of not being able to then
form a case against Dorsey. Though there was also a risk of the criminal trials of the assassins resulting in convictions as well as information that would
allow for the successful

George Zimmerman's Case
George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch leader, was driving to Target to run a errand on the night of February 26, 2012 when he observed a
suspicious person, leisurely walking in the rain, looking at all the houses, wearing a grey hoodie as he would tell dispatch in his 911 call made at 7:09
p.m. Moments later an altercation occurred between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, which left Trayvon dead from a single gunshot wound to his
chest and Zimmerman with a bloody nose and a cut to the back of his head. Zimmerman asserted that the shooting was done in self–defense because he
thought Trayvon was reaching for his ( Zimmerman's ) concealed gun and he feared for his life. Eye witness accounts of the event backed his claim
that Trayvon was hitting him, but Rachel Jeantel, who had been on the phone with Trayvon,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
They went after the prosecution's "star" witness and discredited her. They offered eyewitness testimony that the prosecution could not refute or cast any
doubt on. They also offered Zimmeraman's personal trainer as a witness who explained that Zimmerman was weak which showed that Zimmerman had
no way out of the fight other than lethal force. I think the only thing that the defense did incorrectly was to not ask for immunity under the "Stand Your
Ground" law. I don't see the judge ruling against the defense because of the facts of the case.
The prosecution's theory of the case as they outlined in their opening statement was the "Zimmerman suffered no serious injury in the fight and that he
was a liar and a wanna be cop who concluded, with little evidence to support it, that Trayvon was someone who was about to commit a crime in his
neighborhood". The defense's theory of the case was that "Trayvon sucker punched and struck Zimmerman's head against the ground. The defense
contended that the evidence would show that Zimmerman shot Trayvon from below, with Trayvon's shirt hanging down over his client's prone

Government Power and Authorities
#1. (Chapter 2) Define Federalism and Separation of Powers, Identify the Major Sources of State and Federal authorities explicit to the Constitution,
and explain why the division of powers architecture was important to the Framers.
Federalism is the division of Governmental powers and authorities between the State and Federal Governments. Separation of Powers is not actually
labeled or defined within the constitution. However, the Framers of the constitution found "to avoid tyranny, a separation or division of authority must
exist" (Feldmeier & Hall, 2012). They believed if the powers and authorities weren't separated there would be sheer chaos in the Nation. The U.S.
Constitution explains the authorities the State and Federal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Some more of the powers of Congress found in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution are; "Congress has the power to impose and collect taxes which
are to provide for the debts of the United States, as well as for the common defense and welfare of the Country, Congress has the power to borrow
money on behalf of the United States, The regulation of commerce, both on the international and interstate levels, Congress has the Power to establish
currency and coin money, The power to establish post offices, and to organize, train, and arm a militia" (Understanding Enumerated Powers, 2014).
#4. (Chapter 5) Explain presidential privilege and immunity, citing and discussing the most significant Supreme Court cases in the area.
Once a person is officially elected to be the United States President, he is entitled to presidential privilege. Presidential privilege consists of matters
of confidentiality. A matter Presidential privilege was first questioned "by a federal court in the 1807 treason prosecution of Aaron Burr. An issue in
United States v. Burr was the production of a letter Aaron Burr had sent to President Thomas Jefferson" (Feldmeier & Hall, 2012). In this case,
President Jefferson had to produce the said letter. Presidential privilege was questioned again when President Nixon was in office. There were
accusations of President Nixon recording conversations which were held in the oval

Police Misconduct And Criminal Justice
Introduction Police executives have always had different issues within the police department. Most police executives try to find a quick fix in order to
solve the issue of police misconduct. Police misconduct is defined as inappropriate action taken by police officers in relation with their official duties (
Police Misconduct Law & Legal Definition, n.d.). In order to solve this issue, one must acknowledge their different challenges, overcome the "code of
silence", and find out the role of organizational culture.
Challenges Facing Police Executives There are many challenges facing the police executives in the 21st century, such as civil disorder and
criminal prosecution of officers. In recent years there have been quite a few civil disorders. A civil disorder is a situation in which some citizens
behave in a way that threatens the wellbeing of other citizens or the peace of a community (Cambridge Dictionaries, 2016). In the past seven years
there has been a quite a few civil disorders in the United States, such as the 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, the 2014 protest in
Ferguson, Missouri, and the protests in New York, New York and Berkeley California after a grand jury did not indict a police officer in the death
of Eric Garner. Due to the causes of some of these protests, the public have a distrust and lack of confidence in the law and the legal system (Tyler,
2013). As a police executive, one would have to make decisions in hopes not only to not cause

Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking : Prostitution Or...
Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking: Prostitution or Exploitation? Although the history of child sex trafficking in developing nations has been widely
documented, recently research has revealed that minor sex trafficking (also known as child prostitution) is a growing problem within U.S. borders as
well. "Child prostitution is the sexual exploitation of a minor for profit, which can include money, drugs, or other items of value" (Center for Arizona
Policy, 2014). The sexual exploitation of minors is a lucrative business managed by pimps who use methods of seduction, coercion and/or excessive
force to exploit children in exchange for profit. Recent studies indicate that the average age for entry into child prostitution is 12–14 years old, ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In order to understand the victimization of child prostitutes, it is necessary to look at the process in which they are usually recruited. The first step in
the pimp's victimization of young females is referred to as "romancing". Usually pimps target girls that possess a low self–esteem and, as previously
stated, are already victims of abuse. Often traffickers will present as wealthy business men doting on the girls with gifts, verbal affirmation, and
offering opportunities for fame and money. Once the pimp has gained his victim's trust, he begins to exploit her. The next step is called "seasoning." In
this stage, the perpetrator begins to condition his victim by breaking down her resistance through methods such as threats, torture, rape, starvation,
blackmail, humiliation, branding, and forced drug use. During this stage, victims undergo extreme psychological manipulation. It is no surprise that
prolonged exploitation results in severe physical and psychological trauma including but not limited to STD's, bruises, burns, broken bones, branding,
substance abuse, developmental disorders, eating disorders, homelessness, self–mutilation, insomnia, anxiety, ADHD, severe depression, personality
disorder, and bipolar disorder. Clearly sex trafficking is not a victimless crime. Adults who participate in the buying and selling of minors for
commercial sex are sexual predators that should be prosecuted.
The Main Positions

Why Is Not A Conviction?
Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea.
Provide a rationale to support your position. In most cases the conviction is and can be feasible when a perpetrator does engaged in actus reus but the
prosecution must prove that the defendant committed an actus reus and had the requisite mens rea in order to obtain a conviction for acting as an
accomplice.Actus reus is commonly defined as a criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement. This describes a physical activity that
harms another person or damages property. Anything from a physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property would qualify as an actus...
Two real life examples would be driving while intoxicated and texting while driving these two actus reus deals with physical activity that harms another
and oneself and death alone and property damage. One of the driver was engaged in alcohol substance and the other driver was engaged with a cell
phone. These drivers were distracted and unequipped to be behind the wheel. Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative
immunity. Next, support or criticize the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital for Americans abroad. The difference between legislative immunity
and diplomatic immunity is Legislative immunity is an absolute immunity from liability that is granted to legislators for tortious acts or omissions
done in the course of legislative activities. It protects legislators from liability in a civil lawsuit for duties that they performed within their office 's
jurisdiction. Legislative immunity is also known as parliamentary immunity. As for diplomatic immunity it is international law that limits the degree to
which foreign government and international organization officials and employees are subject to the authority of police officers and judges in their
country of assignment. Diplomatic immunity can be waived by the diplomatic home country and in cases of a serious crimes. As I was reading

Criminal Conduct and Criminal Law
Heather E. Dahl 05/07/2014 Strayer University Professor Aryka N. Moore Assignment 1 Week 4: Criminal Conduct and Criminal Law
Determine whether or not a conviction is feasible when an alleged perpetrator does not have the required mens rea but has engaged in the actus rea.
Provide a rationale to support your position.
Crime has been a part of American history for years and will continue to be for all time. Criminal laws regulate human conduct and tell people what
they can and cannot do ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The amount of time a person will do will or what they will be charged with will be determined by a jury in a court of law.
Explain the distinction between diplomatic immunity and legislative immunity. Next, support or criticize the premise that diplomatic immunity is vital
for Americans abroad.
Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or
prosecution under the host country's laws, although they can still be expelled. Parliamentary immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system
in which members of the parliament or legislature are granted partial immunity from prosecution. It is important for Americans living abroad to have
diplomatic immunity because it means that they are not susceptible to all of the punishment that the said country has in place. If there were no
diplomatic immunity for those individuals abroad then it is very possible that there would be many more issues that Americans serving in other
countries would face.
Argue for or against the theory that the courts should not hold a defendant of questionable competency to the standard sentencing guidelines.
When dealing with a defendant with questionable competency you have to take the case and the circumstances into question. There are many people in
the world with mental disabilities and some even

Argumentative Essay On Child Soldiers
Since the 1970's many countries like Afghanistan, iraq, and Somalia have been using child soldiers as fighters, cooks, spies, suicide bombers, etc.
However, many people today are questioning whether we should prosecute these child soldiers for their war crimes, or give them amnesty. The
question of whether or not to prosecute these children is intrinsically linked to the way we lawfully handle situations, and how we see these children
after their war crimes. As a result, this matter is an extremely contentious one and has allured a lot of discussion. This essay will review some of the
disputations on why prosecution is a convenient way to handle this, and will outline some of the problems with this situation. It will then state a
number of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Article, "child soldiers: invisible children" says, "Take the case of the former Sierra Leone child soldier Ishmael Beah. After being caught in the center
of a vicious civil war in Sierra Leone, Ishmael was forced to become a child soldier." This shows us that the side of prosecuting children is not good, and
how it can be wrong in most cases. Next, children have no say whether they enlist or not, because once they are there then they become brainwashed
through the use of drugs and alcohol. Article, "child soldiers: invisible children" claims, "The drugs, often cocaine mixed with gunpowder, brainwash
the children to the point where they would rather not escape from the horror unraveling around them." This evidence shows that most of the time
children don't have control over what they do, so it's not lawful to prosecute them. And last, children are taken as recruits because they are easily
intimidated and indoctrinated. "Should child soldiers be prosecuted for their crimes" article written by unknown mentions that, "They lack the mental
maturity and judgment to express consent or to fully understand the implications of their actions... and are pushed by their adult commanders into
perpetrating atrocities" This information tells us that children don't understand the things going on around them fully and therefor shouldn't be
prosecuted for being tricked, and forced into

Prosecution Of The International Civil Aviation Organization
Prosecution of Aviation Criminals Civil Accountability or Detriment to Public Safety Since the establishment of the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) in 1944 and the United States (U.S.) National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 1967, safety of the flying public has been a
top priority. To maintain safety, the ICAO member states and NTSB promulgate regulations and guidelines for aviation safety, and investigate aviation
accidents separately from other civil or governmental agencies. However, a troubling trend has developed in ICAO member states of Brazil, France,
Greece, Indonesia, Spain, and Turkey, where criminal investigations of commercial aviation accidents have run parallel or obstructed an aviation safety
investigation (See Appendix A for specific information on aviation accidents in these ICAO states). Criminal investigations stemming from commercial
aviation accidents are not historically unprecedented and are indeed necessary in cases of terrorism, sabotage or intentional misconduct. Court records
show that twenty–seven criminal prosecutions were conducted internationally against commercial airlines and business jet operators from 1956
through 1999 (Nemsick & Passeri, 2012). However from 2000 to 2009, aviation criminal prosecutions globally doubled in frequency and scope due to
six high visibility aviation accidents in the previously mentioned ICAO states. During this nine year period, twenty–eight criminal prosecutions
occurred and

Giglio V. United States: Case Study
In the case, Giglio v United States in 1972, it was determined the prosecution has a legal requirement to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the
defense, this rule established the application to exculpatory evidence the prosecutor may be unaware of (McDonald & Means, 2016). In the Giglio
case, the prosecution provided a key witness, an accomplice to the crime, who testified he had not been made any promises of immunity for his
testimony. Following Giglio's conviction, the defense discovered there was an offer made to the accomplice by another prosecuting attorney. The case
was appealed, overturned, moreover, a new trial was allowed. The credibility of the witness was lost in the previous trial, his statements under oath
were that he had

The International Criminal Court Of The United States
The International Criminal Court try to not to have history repeat itself
The International Criminal Court also known as the (ICC) are a group of judges who investigates and prosecutes individuals that are guilty of crimes
such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and only intervenes when a state cannot intervene or is unwilling to intervene or is an
international concern (Understanding the International Criminal Court). Many inhumane corruptions were committed in the past such as the Holocaust
and many individual have gone unpunished for it. Due to this the United Nation General Assembly was determined to have a court were individuals
who commit such cruel crimes will be held accountable and will be punished for it. An ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Though there are many countries that are apart of the ICC, a fair question is what sparked the need for such a powerful court? Because even though
the ICC is doing their best not to repeat the mistake of have crimes go unpunished there are situation such as the United States refusing to join the
organization and has immunity from being prosecuted that makes the court look unfair and re enforces the idea that that the powerful are
untouchable. Another case would be that the ICC has been heavily criticized for being prone to prosecute cases only in Africa, which raises the
question why do they prosecute countries that are not wealthy and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries. These small questions can make one
consider if there really is a need for an international criminal court. However what one fails to understand is there is a need for an international court.
In this paper I will be discussing exactly what was the cause of such a powerful court, why the United State has continuously refuse to join the ICC and
had immunity before official leaving and finally why does it seem like the ICC is prosecuting countries that are not wealthy such as countries in Africa
and ignore the corruption in wealthy countries.
The establishment of the International Criminal Court in 2002 is one of the most known powerful organizations, having a member of one hundred and
twenty three country but a

Schooner Exchange V. Mcfaddon Summary
The absolute of form of sovereign immunity can be found in the case of Schooner Exchange V. McFaddon (1812). In the case, two Americans filed a
suit against the Schooner Exchange, claiming that they owned the ship and arguing that the ship had been taken by force by France in 1810. But the
United States Supreme Court gave its decision that under international law, jurisdiction over another country could be waived in some specific
situations. That means since the ship had already been in the possession of France, the ship was generally free from the jurisdiction of domestic courts
in the US when visiting the country. Then the historical development of immunities took a turn to another different direction. The US State Department
issued the

Criminal Law Assignment
Assignment Question:
A person who is charged with a criminal offence enjoys certain rights. The principle right is that of the right to silence and the right not to incriminate
yourself. The right to silence is an immunity, which differs in nature, origin, incidence and importance. The suspect's immunity was developed in order
to avoid the risk of untrue confessions being obtained from a person in police custody. The law does not prohibit a suspect from confessing to a crime. It
does however provide that a suspect should be free to remain silent should he so choose and that he should be informed of his right to do so.
Analyze with reference to relevant case law.
Answer:
Introduction:
When the police arrest a person, they ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The privilege against self–incrimination was seen in the case of Re National Irish Bank . Here some inspectors were investigating a company in
connection with some criminal offences. The employees in this company refused to answer the questions given to them claiming that they didn't have
to answer these questions because they enjoyed the constitutional right to silence under the case of Heaney v. Ireland .
Here the right to silence was restricted, as the inspectors had powers that were no greater than what is required by the public. Therefore the employees
had to answer the questions put forward to them by the inspectors.
In this case, Justice Barrington looked at the privilege against self–incrimination in case law in order to see whether any of the information consumed
by the inspector from the accused person involuntary answering the questions put to him were capable of being used against the accused in court.
The conclusion made by Justice Barrington stated that although some legislation restricted the right to silence and required the accused person to
answer questions unwillingly, however these answers might not be used against him as evidence in his trial.
Immunity against self–incrimination of an accused person was made in order to avoid the risk of the accused person in providing false confessions

while he is in Garda custody.
Immunity against self–incrimination has been developed in order to protect the accused from making false

Safford Unified School District #1 V. Redding
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding Facts In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip–searched a 13–year–old girl after they
received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending
math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed
her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the
planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what...
They stated that search measures used by school officials to "root out" contraband must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not
excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." Concurring Opinion and Joining Judges Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed
in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school
officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school. Justice Ginsburg also had a concurring opinion. He agreed with the
majority that the school administrators were qualifiedly immune to prosecution. However, he argued that the judiciary should not meddle with
decisions school administrators make that are in the interest of keeping their schools safe. Dissenting Opinion and Joining Judges Justice Thomas had a
dissenting opinion and stated that the fourth amendment right does protect us against unreasonable search and seizures (as did most of the judges).
But it is the context of were it takes place he says students have the fourth amendment right just not on school property. The reason is the responsibility
the school and the officials have is to ensure the safety of the students. Thomas concurred in the

Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.s. 83
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with
another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a
confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the "Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the
prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md.
422, 174 A.2d 167" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth
Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;
"Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused–– evidence that goes
towards negating a defendant 's guilt, that would reduce a defendant 's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness" (Cornell
University Law School, 2015). This case showed prejudice on the behalf of the prosecutionbecause they withheld material evidence that could have
changed the sentencing part of Mr. Brady's trial. Mr. Brady was not innocent in his crimes but the prosecutor held back and did not disclose ahead of
time information on a confession and "due process requirements not only

Self-Defense Legislation
Self–defense is the right for an individual to use necessary force in order to defend oneself against an unlawful force of another. Therefore, an act that
is typically depicted as a crime is not punishable under these circumstances. Joycelyn M. Pollock (2013) pointed out that, "the right to protect oneself,
one's family, and one's "castle" is a time–honored right that existed before the common law and was recognized by it" (P.101). Under common law, a
criminal charge depended upon a showing that the defendant believed force was necessary in order for self protection, upon reasonable grounds, the
threat was forthcoming, and the force was not excessively used (Pollock, 2013, 102). Today, self–defense elements are different in each state.... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Correspondingly, in some statues an agency cannot arrest an individual for the use of force unless the force used was determined unlawful. Therefore,
the "Stand your Ground" laws have thoroughly extended self–defense rights. Some states contain "Make My Day" laws, which allow the use of deadly
force for the protection of property when an individual believes that force is necessary to prevent a criminal felony (Pollock, 2013, 106). An
individual is also allowed to use reasonable force even if the user does not feel an immediate threat but reasonably believes a crime will occur.
Originally, case law prohibited the use of weapons due to the possibility of hurting innocent individuals such as a police officer trying to legally enter
the premises. Nevertheless, "Stand your Ground" laws have allowed the use of deadly force in order to protect against all possible felonies. The
extension and initiation of various self–defense laws have caused nationwide controversy. Advocates state that law–abiding individuals should be
allowed to protect themselves unlawful force without the possibility of being criminally or civilly charged. Correspondingly, the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitution grants the federal right to bear arms regardless of militia stature and upholds the natural rights of self–defense.
Likewise, legislators argue that individuals visiting or residing in the United States contain the right to remain secure in

African Of The International Criminal Court
I.Background
A.African States Contribution in the Inception of ICC–Membership/Signatory of Rome Statue
African states have shown a strong commitment to putting an end to impunity for massive violations of humanitarian law. This commitment is shown
first in domestic contexts in which African states have used their own criminal law systems to prosecute war criminals, in special tribunals such as that
in Sierra Leone, and in African states ' well–established commitment to the international criminal Court. African countries have been actively involved
in the establishment of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute more than 20 years ago, since negotiation started for the creation of the
ICC. Among other African delegations,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At the Rome Conference, African States actively participated in the debates, and African delegations were mainly led by high caliber
officials–Ministers of Justice, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Attorneys General. Forty–seven African states were present for the drafting of the Rome
Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC, at the Rome Conference in July 1998. Many of these countries were members of the Like–Minded Group that
pushed for adoption of the final Statute. Of the forty–seven African countries involved in drafting the Statute, the vast majority voted in favor of
adopting the Rome Statute and establishing the ICC.
Thirty–four African countries are currently signatories to the Rome Statute of the ICC. Thirty African states have ratified the Rome Statute, making
Africa the most heavily represented region in the Court's membership. Approximately twenty African countries have final or draft national
implementation legislation that incorporates Rome Statute crimes and/or enables cooperation with the Court. The first and the most recent countries to
ratify the Rome Statute are Senegal and Cote d'Ivoire, respectively. These indicate African State support for a

Akram Dejam Case Study
Mr. Akram Dejam is a foreign resident alien. He arrived in the United States in 1996 from Yugoslavia. His immigration and naturalization file indicates
that he was born in 1970 in Sarajevo. In connection with his immigration, Mr. Dejam stated that during the years 1988В¬ to 1993 he was a student.
Recently, the U.S. Office of Special Investigations (OSI) received information that Mr. Dejam was perhaps not just a student during these years. In
fact, he may have been a war criminal, formerly engaged in atrocities during the on–going civil war in his home country. Based on this information, the
OSI is now investigating Mr. Dejam. In connection with this investigation, OSI has issued an administrative subpoena demanding that Dejam produce
documents... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Gecas, 830 F. Supp. 1403 Gecas stated in his application for an Immigrant Visa that, during the years 1938 through 1944, he was a "pupil" in Lithuania.
Gecas swore that this information was true. The petitioner now claims to have evidence that, during this period, Gecas, in fact, assisted the Nazi forces
then occupying Lithuania, and that he participated in the persecution of persons because of their race, religion, and/or political opinion. Had this
information been known to petitioner at the time of Gecas's immigration, he would have been disqualified from entering the United States. In
furtherance of its investigation into Gecas's wartime activities, the petitioner, through its Office of Special Investigations ("OSI"), issued an
administrative subpoena commanding Gecas to give testimony and to produce documents relating both to his immigration to the United States, and to
his activities in Europe between 1940 and 1945. Gecas does not challenge the validity of the administrative subpoena. Nor does he argue that OSI is
without the power to issue such subpoenas. Finally, it is undisputed that, although he faces the possibility of deportation, Gecas faces no threat of
criminal prosecution in the United States. His only complaint is that his answers to the investigator's questions, along with the production of the
requested documents, would expose him to possible criminal prosecution in a foreign country. Gecas argues that the Fifth Amendment to the

Lack Of Discipline For Prosecutorial Consecutors
I. IntroductionProsecutorial misconduct is something that rarely gets brought to the light. Mainly because prosecutors seldom get punished for their
misconduct. Prosecutors are held to a higher moral standard than the average person because of their knowledge of the law. However, some
prosecutors use this as an excuse to cut corners and think that he or she is untouchable. The job of a prosecutor is to find justice, but some prosecutors
just want to get a conviction every time. Some prosecutors are willing to do whatever it takes to do so, even if it means breaking the rules.
II. Lack of Discipline for Prosecutors Believe it or not, prosecutorial misconduct is not new, it has been going on for decades. Carmen Marino was a
prosecutor in the Cuyahoga County District Attorney's Office in Ohio for thirty years; he made many convictions over his career and even got an
award named after him. That was until most of those convictions got overturned because of his misconduct. For example, failing to disclose key pieces
of evidence to defendants before trial, allowing prosecution witnesses to lie on the stand, and delivering improper closing statements. The Center for
Public Integrity reported that five of Marino's convictions had been overturned by reviewing courts. One of the most well–known cases of Marino's
was a case involving someone named Joseph D'Ambrosio who was convicted of murder in 1989 and sentenced to death. D'Amborsio filed a writ of
habeas corpus based

Stand Your Ground Law
"Stand your ground" law is beneficial to the state of Florida. "Stand Your Ground is a form of self–defense law that allows individuals to meet force
with deadly force without an affirmative duty to retreat (standyourground.org)."The stand your ground law was adopted by Florida in 2005.
additionally, twenty–two other states adopted this law, which is used in different situations in each state, but are very similar. The law was adopted
from a 17th century English common law called Castle Doctrine. In the court case Lovett v. State, rather than creating a new defense law the stand your
ground law broadens the scope of self–defense by establishing no duty to treat. Prior to the passing of broadening law, a person would first have to use
every ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This law has allowed drug dealer and gang members walk free from murder chargers. Furthermore, the number of cases that claim the defense of
stand your ground law are continuing to increase. Why, because defense attorney's are using the law in a way to state legislators never imagined.
This defense has played a major role in a number of cases with minor or no injuries (Tampabay.com). For instance, in the case of Jordan Davis, the
stand your ground defense was abused by Dunn. Why, because he shot in the car of a young teen because he thought he saw a gun, even though no
harm caused. Dunn in this case could have avoided the altercation by ignoring the young teen music in staying in his car. Since Dunn knew the stand
your ground law, he knew that he could get away with the crime. " In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot
an unarmed person or pursued their victim – and still went free (Tampabay.com)." In fact, about two–third of defendants that used this claim used a
shovel, gun, and other weapons like an ice pick, and a chair leg. Even though, there are many factors that play a role when a decision is being made
in a defense claim, like the location of evidence, witnesses, and the size of the party and age involved in the case, facts do not matter long as the
person has a reasonable excuse. Reasonable excuses are causing people to abuse the law, because

Article Titled 'Personal Critical Reaction to the Case for...
Part 1 Personal Critical Reaction Conspiracy to commit murder is one of the most difficult things to prove without a reasonable doubt and because
the prosecution was aware that the case for murder against the former Sheriff, Dorsey was based upon a conspiracy charge the course of action for
the prosecution was relatively clear. They had to somehow convince a jury that Dorsey had recruited the four other men, Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers,
Melvin Walker and David Ramsey with the express intent of killing Derwin Brown. The reason that these types of murder charges are fundamentally
difficult to prosecute lies in the fact that if the recruiter/master mind behind the event is ultimately successful on the first attempt to obtain an assassin,
there rarely anyone, other than the actual killer(s) to testify that the mastermind in fact ordered and also likely made some sort of compensation for
the act on the part of the assassin(s). In this case the prosecution proved to this jury using the testimony of, Patrick Cuffy, Paul Skyers, two of the
admitted assassins, on immunity deals to provide evidence against Dorsey. The ethical dilemma is then the immunity deals offered to Cuffy and
Skyers. The dilemma is fascinating as these sorts of immunity deals, in the case of murder are relatively rare, as most people feel that the actual doer
of the crime, is as guilty or more guilty than the mastermind behind it, as that individual(s) has the ultimate decision making as to whether the crime

Quality Of Judicial Performance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Dearney Wartenbee

More from Dearney Wartenbee (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Quality Of Judicial Performance