- Trials and Verdicts
Due Week 8 and worth 200 points
In 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. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Summarize the current ethical issues faced by criminal justice professionals and future of the criminal justice system.
- Explain the development of American courts and illustrate the concept of the dual-court system.
- Distinguish between the various courtroom participants, and describe the stages in a criminal trial.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in criminal justice.
- Write clearly and concisely about criminal justice using proper writing mechanics and APA style conventions.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
Click here to view the grading rubric.
- By submitting this paper, you agree: (1) that you are submitting your paper to be used and stored as part of the SafeAssign™ services in accordance with the Blackboard Privacy Policy; (2) that your institution may use your paper in accordance with your institution’s policies; and (3) that your use of SafeAssign will be without recourse against Blackboard Inc. and its affiliates.
The case chosen to describe the unique functions and powers of courts over jurisdiction is the case of FireClean, LLC v. Andrew Tuohy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00294-JCC-MSN, 2016. In this case the defendant had been accused of defaming the plaintiff over the internet. The plaintiff in this case was a company in Virginia which manufactured special oil which helped to reduce the production of carbon residue whit respect to fire arms. The plaintiff has made an allegation in this case that the defendant Andrew Tuohy has been defaming the company using a website known as the Vuurwapen Blog. The defendant had compared the chemical makeup of the specialized oil with that of soybean oil and Canola oil. The defendant in this case has posted that the chemical composition of the specialized oil was same as that of Crisco Vegetable oil and further criticized the chemical composition of the specialized oil thorough the blog.
The plaintiff in this case provided that the blog post made by the defendant had misled the consumers and the defendant had done this to promote and attract increased readers with respect to his blog.
The defendant in this case was a resident of Arizona but the case was brought upon him in the court of Virginia by the defendant. The defendant had made a claim that the Virginia court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. The Virginia court in this case applied the minimum contact test and claimed personal jurisdiction over the defendant rejecting his claim.
2
The case chosen in which the defendant accepted the plea bargain over the trial process is the case of Lafler v Cooper No. 10-209. 2012. In this case the defendant had been accused of attempt to murder along with three more offences. The prosecution in this case made an offer to him which stated that they would dismiss three of his charges and he would only be liable to serve a sentence of 50-84 month. The defendant in this case admitted that he has been guilty of committing the charged offences and also provided a willingness to accept the offer made by the prosecution. The defendant in this case had dismissed the offer latter made by the prosecution as it was advised to him by his attorney that the prosecution would not be able to prove the murder charge against him. The trial process continued and it was found by the court that the defendant was guilty of the charges against him. Thus he was provided by the court a sentence accounting to 185-360 months. The defendant appealed in the Michigan court of appeals that he was provided with a negligent advice by his attorney with respect to the court trial. The court of appeal in this case held that the advice provided to him by his attorney was actually ineffective which forced him not to accept the offer. The court of appeal further provided that the defendant has been able to prove that the offer would have been presented in the court and it would have been accepted by it.
3
The case selected to identify the situation where a person was convicted by the court and latter was discovered to be not guilty is the case of Davontae Sanford. In this case the defendant who was only 14 years of age as convicted of four murders. The confession about the crime was brought out of the defendant by the police through the use of unethical means such as lies and offer to go back home if he confessed.
The attorney of the defendant did not make any attempt to question the interrogation made by the police and neither did he cross question the police with respect to the interrogation. As a result the defendant was declared guilty by the court and was provided with a sentence of 32-92 years in prison.
Only after a period of two weeks from when the defendant was sentence another person was arrested who admitted the fact that he along with his adult accomplice were responsible for the four murders and not the defendant. He further confessed of committing eight more murders during the period of 2006-2007. Unlike the confession made by the defendant the confession of the arrested person was according to law and highly detailed.
A motion of relief from judgment was filed by MIC and CWCY . The motion proved that the confession made by the latter person was more reliable than that of the defendant. The defendant was released following an immediate release order made in July 2016 by the Wayne county judge (NBC News, 2017).
References
Lafler v Cooper No. 10-209. 2012
Man Wrongly Convicted of 4 Murders at Age 14 to Be Freed. (2017). NBC News. Retrieved 25 February 2017, from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/davontae-sanford-wrongly-convicted-4-murders-age-14-be-freed-n588206
FireClean, LLC v. Andrew Tuohy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00294-JCC-MSN, 2016
The case chosen to describe the unique functions and powers of courts over jurisdiction is the case of FireClean, LLC v. Andrew Tuohy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00294-JCC-MSN, 2016. In this case the defendant had been accused of defaming the plaintiff over the internet. The plaintiff was a company in Virginia which manufactured special oil which helped to reduce the production of carbon residue whit respect to fire arms. The plaintiff has made an allegation that the defendant Andrew Tuohy has been defaming the company using a website known as the Vuurwapen Blog. The defendant had compared the chemical makeup of the specialized oil with that of soybean oil and Canola oil. The defendant here, has posted that the chemical composition of the specialized oil was same as that of Crisco Vegetable oil and further criticized the chemical composition of the specialized oil thorough the blog.
The plaintiff has provided that the blog post made by the defendant had misled the consumers and the defendant had done this to promote and attract increased readers with respect to his blog.
The defendant here was a resident of Arizona but the case was brought upon him in the court of Virginia by the defendant. The defendant had made a claim that the Virginia court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. The Virginia court applied the minimum contact test and claimed personal jurisdiction over the defendant rejecting his claim.
2
The case chosen in which the defendant accepted the plea bargain over the trial process is the case of Lafler v Cooper No. 10-209. 2012. In this case the defendant had been accused of attempt to murder along with three more offences. The prosecution made an offer to him which stated that they would dismiss three of his charges and he would only be liable to serve a sentence of 50-84 month. The defendant admitted that he has been guilty of committing the charged offences and also provided a willingness to accept the offer made by the prosecution. The defendant had dismissed the offer latter made by the prosecution as it was advised to him by his attorney that the prosecution would not be able to prove the murder charge against him. The trial process continued and it was found by the court that the defendant was guilty of the charges against him. Thus, he was provided by the court a sentence accounting to 185-360 months. The defendant appealed in the Michigan court of appeals that he was provided with a negligent advice by his attorney with respect to the court trial. The court of appeal held that the advice provided to him by his attorney was actually ineffective which forced him not to accept the offer. The court of appeal further provided that the defendant has been able to prove that the offer would have been presented in the court and it would have been accepted by it.
3
The case selected to identify the situation where a person was convicted by the court and latter was discovered to be not guilty is the case of Davontae Sanford. In the mentioned case, the defendant who was only 14 years of age as convicted of four murders. The confession about the crime was brought out of the defendant by the police through the use of unethical means such as lies and offer to go back home if he confessed.
The attorney of the defendant did not make any attempt to question the interrogation made by the police and neither did he cross question the police with respect to the interrogation. As a result the defendant was declared guilty by the court and was provided with a sentence of 32-92 years in prison.
Only after a period of two weeks from when the defendant was sentence another person was arrested who admitted the fact that he along with his adult accomplice were responsible for the four murders and not the defendant. He further confessed of committing eight more murders during the period of 2006-2007. Unlike the confession made by the defendant the confession of the arrested person was according to law and highly detailed.
A motion of relief from judgment was filed by MIC and CWCY . The motion proved that the confession made by the latter person was more reliable than that of the defendant. The defendant was released following an immediate release order made in July 2016 by the Wayne county judge (NBC News, 2017).
References
Lafler v Cooper No. 10-209. 2012
Man Wrongly Convicted of 4 Murders at Age 14 to Be Freed. (2017). NBC News. Retrieved 25 February 2017, from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/davontae-sanford-wrongly-convicted-4-murders-age-14-be-freed-n588206
FireClean, LLC v. Andrew Tuohy, Case No. 1:16-cv-00294-JCC-MSN, 2016
