n preparation for this assignment, please view the Jurisville scenarios and resulting simulations from Weeks 5 through 7 in Unit 2: Courts. In the scenarios and resulting simulations, Tim Smith, senior criminal lawyer, discusses select cases and asks a paralegal to indicate which courts would have exclusive jurisdiction of the cases in question. He also discusses various pretrial procedures and illustrates them with select cases. Finally, Tim Smith introduces the case of Roland Gary, who served twenty-three (23) years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The case brought to light several key issues, along with the manner in which they were resolved. Use the Internet to research three real-life cases from the past five (5) years that fit the following criteria: Cases that depict the unique processes related to different courts The defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial The defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you: Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question. Provide a rationale for the response. Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the selected case. Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment.  Note:  Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources. Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements: Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Assignment 2: Trials and Verdicts Criteria Unacceptable Below 60% F Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D Fair 70-79% C Proficient 80-89% B Exemplary 90-100% A 1.  Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. Weight: 25% Did not submit or incompletely discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and did not submit or incompletely identified the court that took jurisdiction.  Did not submit or incompletely explained why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. Insufficiently discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and  insufficiently identified the court that took jurisdiction. Insufficiently explained why the cou.

1. n preparation for this assignment, please view the Jurisville
scenarios and resulting simulations from Weeks 5 through 7 in
Unit 2: Courts.
In the scenarios and resulting simulations, Tim Smith, senior
criminal lawyer, discusses select cases and asks a paralegal to
indicate which courts would have exclusive jurisdiction of the
cases in question. He also discusses various pretrial procedures
and illustrates them with select cases. Finally, Tim Smith
introduces the case of Roland Gary, who served twenty-three
(23) years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The
case brought to light several key issues, along with the manner
in which they were resolved.
Use the Internet to research three real-life cases from the past
five (5) years that fit the following criteria:
Cases that depict the unique processes related to different courts
The defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial
The defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated
Write a three to four (3-4) page paper in which you:
Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain
why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the
particular circumstances.
Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give
your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in
question. Provide a rationale for the response.
Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine
its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the
selected case.
Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment.
Note:
Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality

2. resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size
12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references
must follow APA or school-specific format.
Assignment 2:
Trials and Verdicts
Criteria
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
Meets Minimum Expectations
60-69% D
Fair
70-79% C
Proficient
80-89% B
Exemplary
90-100% A
1.
Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain
why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the
particular circumstances.
Weight: 25%
Did not submit or incompletely
discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and did not submit or incompletely identified the court
that took jurisdiction.
Did not submit or incompletely
explained why the court that took the case was the appropriate
one for the particular circumstances.

3. Insufficiently
discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and insufficiently identified the court that took
jurisdiction.
Insufficiently
explained why the court that took the case was the appropriate
one for the particular circumstances.
Partially
discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and partially identified the court that took jurisdiction.
Partially
explained why the court that took the case was the appropriate
one for the particular circumstances.
Satisfactorily
discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and satisfactorily identified the court that took
jurisdiction.
Satisfactorily
explained why the court that took the case was the appropriate
one for the particular circumstances.
Thoroughly
discussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current
events, and thoroughly identified the court that took
jurisdiction.
Thoroughly
explained why the court that took the case was the appropriate
one for the particular circumstances.
2.
Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give
your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in
question. Provide a rationale for your response.
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or incompletely
discussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.

4. Did not submit or incompletely
gave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the
case in question.
Did not submit or incompletely
provided a rationale for your response.
Insufficiently
discussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.
Insufficiently
gave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the
case in question.
Insufficiently
provided a rationale for your response.
Partially
discussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.
Partially
gave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the
case in question.
Partially
provided a rationale for your response.
Satisfactorily
discussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.
Satisfactorily
gave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the
case in question.
Satisfactorily
provided a rationale for your response.
Thoroughly
discussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the
defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.
Thoroughly
gave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the
case in question.
Thoroughly

5. provided a rationale for your response.
3.
Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine
its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the
selected case.
Weight: 30%
Did not submit or incompletely
discussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated.
Did not submit or incompletely
explored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation
to the case at large.
Did not submit or incompletely
described the resolution to the selected case.
Insufficiently
discussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated.
Insufficiently
explored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation
to the case at large.
Insufficiently
described the resolution to the selected case.
Partially
discussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated.
Partially
explored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation
to the case at large.
Partially
described the resolution to the selected case.
Satisfactorily

6. discussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated.
Satisfactorily
explored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation
to the case at large.
Satisfactorily
described the resolution to the selected case.
Thoroughly
discussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like
Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later
vindicated.
Thoroughly
explored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation
to the case at large.
Thoroughly
described the resolution to the selected case.
4. 3 references
Weight: 5%
No references provided
Does not meet the required number of references; all references
poor quality choices.
Does not meet the required number of references; some
references poor quality choices.
Meets number of required references; all references high quality
choices.
Exceeds number of required references; all references high
quality choices.
5. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements
Weight: 10%
More than 8 errors present
7-8 errors present
5-6 errors present
3-4 errors present
0-2 errors present