Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Court Case Studies

    Încărcat de

    Brenda Anderson
    65 vizualizări8 pagini
    Case 1 A young man robbed a woman in a women's restroom at the Washington National Monument. During the robbery, the woman had a good opportunity to see the young man. The woman immediately reported the robbery and described the young man who robbed her. Three days later, a young man (Crain) was improperly and illegally detained. Photographs were taken of the young man and a photographic display (array) was shown to the woman. She immediately identified Crain as the man who robbed her at gunpoint. In a lineup, the woman again identified Crain as the robber. At Crain's trial for armed robbery, the woman appeared as a witness and identified the defendant as the robber. Crain was convicted, and he appealed arguing that the in-court-identification was the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should not be used as evidence. 1. Should the U.S. Supreme Court affirm Crain's conviction, and should the woman's in-court identification be allowed as evidence? Why? Case 2 California police officers improperly arrested Watson in his apartment. Before taking Watson to the police station, arrangements had to be made for the care of Watson's cat and dog. In an attempt to provide for the care of these animals, the officers went to the apartment of a neighbor (Mrs. Lopez) to inquire if she would take care of the animals. Mrs. Lopez told the officers that they should investigate Watson for a recent bank robbery in which the robber had presented his demand in a note threatening that he had nitroglycerin on his person. Mrs. Lopez stated that she was in Watson's apartment on the morning of the robbery and he was writing a note and had asked her how to spell nitroglycerin. The officers had not suspected Watson of the robbery, but the investigation that followed produced sufficient evidence to convict Watson of the bank robbery. An appeal was taken from the conviction arguing, among other issues, that the defense position of "the fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine required suppression of the evidence that was ultimately used to convict Watson. 1. Should the evidence be suppressed, or should it be admissible in Watson's trial for armed robbery? Explain. Case 3 The defendant, who was charged with a robbery and murder, was placed in a jail cell with a police informant. The informant overheard the defendant make incriminating statements that he passed on to the police. 1. Can the informant appear as a witness and testify about the statements he heard if he took no action other than merely listening to what the defendant had to say? Explain. Should the evidence of the defendant's statements be admissible if there was a prior arrangement with the police to put the informant in a position where he could overhear the defendant's statements? Explain. If the informant "deliberately elicited" the statements from the defendant by questions and conversation should the evidence be admissible? Explain. Case 4 Police were investigating a shooting death outside a cafe in Dallas, Texas. Defendant Ortez had left the scene of the shooting and had returned to his boardinghouse to sleep. At about 4 a.m. four police officers arrived at the petitioner's boardinghouse, were admitted by an unidentified woman, and were told that the petitioner was asleep in the bedroom. All four officers entered the bedroom and began to question the petitioner. From the moment he gave his name, according to the testimony of one of the officers, the petitioner was not free to go where he pleased but was "under arrest." The officers asked him if he had been to the El Farleto restaurant that night; when he answered yes, he was asked if he owned a pistol. The petitioner admitted to owning one. After being asked a second time where the pistol was located, he admitted that it was in the washing machine in a backroom of the boardinghouse. Ballistics tests indicated that the gun found in the washing machine was th

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Case 1 A young man robbed a woman in a women's restroom at the Washington National Monument. During the robbery, the woman had a good opportunity to see the young man. The woman immediately reported the robbery and described the young man who robbed her. Three days later, a young man (Crain) was improperly and illegally detained. Photographs were taken of the young man and a photographic display (array) was shown to the woman. She immediately identified Crain as the man who robbed her at gunpoint. In a lineup, the woman again identified Crain as the robber. At Crain's trial for armed robbery, the woman appeared as a witness and identified the defendant as the robber. Crain was convicted, and he appealed arguing that the in-court-identification was the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should not be used as evidence. 1. Should the U.S. Supreme Court affirm Crain's conviction, and should the woman's in-court identification be allowed as evidence? Why? Case 2 California police officers improperly arrested Watson in his apartment. Before taking Watson to the police station, arrangements had to be made for the care of Watson's cat and dog. In an attempt to provide for the care of these animals, the officers went to the apartment of a neighbor (Mrs. Lopez) to inquire if she would take care of the animals. Mrs. Lopez told the officers that they should investigate Watson for a recent bank robbery in which the robber had presented his demand in a note threatening that he had nitroglycerin on his person. Mrs. Lopez stated that she was in Watson's apartment on the morning of the robbery and he was writing a note and had asked her how to spell nitroglycerin. The officers had not suspected Watson of the robbery, but the investigation that followed produced sufficient evidence to convict Watson of the bank robbery. An appeal was taken from the conviction arguing, among other issues, that the defense position of "the fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine required suppression of the evidence that was ultimately used to convict Watson. 1. Should the evidence be suppressed, or should it be admissible in Watson's trial for armed robbery? Explain. Case 3 The defendant, who was charged with a robbery and murder, was placed in a jail cell with a police informant. The informant overheard the defendant make incriminating statements that he passed on to the police. 1. Can the informant appear as a witness and testify about the statements he heard if he took no action other than merely listening to what the defendant had to say? Explain. Should the evidence of the defendant's statements be admissible if there was a prior arrangement with the police to put the informant in a position where he could overhear the defendant's statements? Explain. If the informant "deliberately elicited" the statements from the defendant by questions and conversation should the evidence be admissible? Explain. Case 4 Police were investigating a shooting death outside a cafe in Dallas, Texas. Defendant Ortez had left the scene of the shooting and had returned to his boardinghouse to sleep. At about 4 a.m. four police officers arrived at the petitioner's boardinghouse, were admitted by an unidentified woman, and were told that the petitioner was asleep in the bedroom. All four officers entered the bedroom and began to question the petitioner. From the moment he gave his name, according to the testimony of one of the officers, the petitioner was not free to go where he pleased but was "under arrest." The officers asked him if he had been to the El Farleto restaurant that night; when he answered yes, he was asked if he owned a pistol. The petitioner admitted to owning one. After being asked a second time where the pistol was located, he admitted that it was in the washing machine in a backroom of the boardinghouse. Ballistics tests indicated that the gun found in the washing machine was th

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    65 vizualizări8 pagini

    Court Case Studies

    Încărcat de

    Brenda Anderson
    Case 1 A young man robbed a woman in a women's restroom at the Washington National Monument. During the robbery, the woman had a good opportunity to see the young man. The woman immediately reported the robbery and described the young man who robbed her. Three days later, a young man (Crain) was improperly and illegally detained. Photographs were taken of the young man and a photographic display (array) was shown to the woman. She immediately identified Crain as the man who robbed her at gunpoint. In a lineup, the woman again identified Crain as the robber. At Crain's trial for armed robbery, the woman appeared as a witness and identified the defendant as the robber. Crain was convicted, and he appealed arguing that the in-court-identification was the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and should not be used as evidence. 1. Should the U.S. Supreme Court affirm Crain's conviction, and should the woman's in-court identification be allowed as evidence? Why? Case 2 California police officers improperly arrested Watson in his apartment. Before taking Watson to the police station, arrangements had to be made for the care of Watson's cat and dog. In an attempt to provide for the care of these animals, the officers went to the apartment of a neighbor (Mrs. Lopez) to inquire if she would take care of the animals. Mrs. Lopez told the officers that they should investigate Watson for a recent bank robbery in which the robber had presented his demand in a note threatening that he had nitroglycerin on his person. Mrs. Lopez stated that she was in Watson's apartment on the morning of the robbery and he was writing a note and had asked her how to spell nitroglycerin. The officers had not suspected Watson of the robbery, but the investigation that followed produced sufficient evidence to convict Watson of the bank robbery. An appeal was taken from the conviction arguing, among other issues, that the defense position of "the fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine required suppression of the evidence that was ultimately used to convict Watson. 1. Should the evidence be suppressed, or should it be admissible in Watson's trial for armed robbery? Explain. Case 3 The defendant, who was charged with a robbery and murder, was placed in a jail cell with a police informant. The informant overheard the defendant make incriminating statements that he passed on to the police. 1. Can the informant appear as a witness and testify about the statements he heard if he took no action other than merely listening to what the defendant had to say? Explain. Should the evidence of the defendant's statements be admissible if there was a prior arrangement with the police to put the informant in a position where he could overhear the defendant's statements? Explain. If the informant "deliberately elicited" the statements from the defendant by questions and conversation should the evidence be admissible? Explain. Case 4 Police were investigating a shooting death outside a cafe in Dallas, Texas. Defendant Ortez had left the scene of the shooting and had returned to his boardinghouse to sleep. At about 4 a.m. four police officers arrived at the petitioner's boardinghouse, were admitted by an unidentified woman, and were told that the petitioner was asleep in the bedroom. All four officers entered the bedroom and began to question the petitioner. From the moment he gave his name, according to the testimony of one of the officers, the petitioner was not free to go where he pleased but was "under arrest." The officers asked him if he had been to the El Farleto restaurant that night; when he answered yes, he was asked if he owned a pistol. The petitioner admitted to owning one. After being asked a second time where the pistol was located, he admitted that it was in the washing machine in a backroom of the boardinghouse. Ballistics tests indicated that the gun found in the washing machine was th

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 8

    Court Case Studies 1

    Court Case Studies


    Name
    Class
    Date
    Professor












    Court Case Studies 2

    Court Case Studies
    Case One
    In the first case a young man robbed a woman in a womens restroom at the Washington
    National Monument. The female victim was able to get a good look at the offender and describe
    them to police. Police later illegally arrest a suspect named Crain and provide the victim with a
    photographic display including a picture of the suspect. The victim identifies Crain as the armed
    robber and he is found guilty of the crime of armed robbery. He appealed the conviction arguing
    that the in-court-identification was the fruit of the poisonous tree and should not be used as
    evidence (Rodriquez, 2011).
    When police make illegal arrests they risk any evidence they collect being excluded from
    the court process. According to the Exclusionary rule evidence that is collected illegally will not
    be permitted in a court of law even if this evidence can point directly to the guilt of the suspect.
    In this case Crain was illegally arrested so the photographic evidence shown to the victim would
    be excluded. If police had not arrested the suspect illegally his evidence and any evidence
    collected due to the illegal arrest will be excluded from a court of law. This is known as the
    fruit of a poisonous tree doctrine. What this means is basically illegal evidence becomes
    tainted like a rotten apple and this rotten apple (illegal evidence) taints the rest of the apple
    (evidence).
    The Exclusionary Rule developed out of several ruling by the Supreme Court beginning
    with Week vs. United States where the court determined that evidence seized illegally, such as
    the photograph of the defendant, if was subject to exclusion (Clancy, 2010). The goal was to
    punish the bead behavior of police and create a remedy for criminal suspects subject to the bad
    Court Case Studies 3

    behavior of law enforcement. Only the victim suffers when police grab evidence illegally is the
    victim. The police are rarely punished for their bad actions and the suspect get evidence that
    could prove their guilt excluded from the court process. When evidence is excluded the guilty
    goes free and the victim never receives justice. The in-court identification would be excluded
    based on the way the evidence was collected.
    When evidence is collected illegally, any evidence collected from the illegal evidence is
    also excluded. The fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine evidence is also excluded from trial if it
    was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive
    interrogation (Rodriquez, 2011). When evidence results in additional evidence being located
    against the criminal suspect this evidence will also be excluded from the court process. Any
    evidence collected illegally will be excluded from the court process. Police have a legal
    obligation to uphold the due process rights of the criminal suspect in order to protect the
    evidence to ensure the victim gets justice.
    Case Two
    In the second case Watson was illegally arrested by police. When police went to ask a
    neighbor to watch the suspects cat and dog they obtain evidence against the suspect on another
    crime. The neighbor gave police evidence on another crime involving a bank robbery. The
    neighbor claimed Watson had asked her to spell nitroglycerin and the robbery involved a note
    being handed to the teller saying they had nitroglycerin. Watson was later found to be guilty of
    the bank robbery. In this scenario the evidence may be suppressed based on the fruit of the
    poisonous tree doctrine.
    Court Case Studies 4

    In this case police illegally arrested Watson on another crime. Any evidence collected
    due to this illegal arrest would be excluded. The problem is the evidence given to police was for
    a totally different crime no related to the crime police arrested Watson for so they fruit of the
    poisonous tree may not apply. The determination of suppression would fall into the hands of the
    judge. If the judge determines the arrest was illegal he/she would excluded any evidence
    collected on the crime they were arrested for. The evidence police obtained though the interview
    of the neighbor would automatically be excluded because police should never have been talking
    to the neighbor.
    On the other hand police were not questioning the neighbor about the crime the criminal
    suspect was arrested for and did not seek out the evidence about the note. The information was
    instead provided by the neighbor without any solicitation by the police. In this case any evidence
    collected on the original arrests should be excluded but evidence located after the illegal arrest
    on the second crime should not be excluded and would not be considered fruit of the poisonous
    tree. Under this doctrine, not only must illegally obtained evidence be excluded, but also all
    evidence obtained or derived from exploitation of that evidence (Rodriquez, 2011). The new
    evidence was for a totally new crime and the witness was not acting on the behalf of the police
    when she relayed the important information.
    Case Three
    In case three a criminal suspect is placed in a jail sail with a police informant. The
    informant heard the criminal suspects make statements admitting to his role in a robbery and a
    murder. The informant can appear as a witness for the state and give testimony on the
    information he overheard. The police informant did not illicit any information from the suspect
    Court Case Studies 5

    but instead it was given willingly. This makes the evidence overheard by the police informant
    admissible in a court of law. If a police officer was to illicit a response from unwitting prison
    inmate then the evidence they elicited would not be admissible because the inmate would not
    have been aware they could insert their constitutional right to an attorney (Merritt, 2012). If the
    inmate gives the information freely then it is not constitutionally protected.
    When there is a prior arrangement for an informant to be in a position to overhear a
    confession from the inmate the information should be admissible only if it was given willingly
    and if the inmates and the police informant do not have any personal relationship, such as being
    bunk mates. When the police informant is roommates with the inmate the lines become blurred
    to what information was elicited and what information was freely given.
    When the information is deliberately elicited from the inmate then it should not be
    admissible. When a police informant is asking on the behalf of police they are considered a
    police agent. When any agent of the police questions a suspect the information ahs the same
    constitutional protection as if they information was elicited by the police. When an informant is
    not acting on behalf of the police then the evidence will get a different response in the court of
    law.
    Case Four
    In this case police entered a boarding home where they were let in by an unknown
    woman. The police then proceeded to the defendants bedroom where they entered and
    immediately began to question the petitioner. When the criminal suspect was being questioned
    he could not leave and was instead under arrest. When police question any suspect about crimes
    and the suspect being questioned is under the control of police, such as being under arrest or
    Court Case Studies 6

    being questioned in an interrogation room, they have a legal obligation to read the suspect their
    Miranda Rights.
    The Miranda warning involves informing the criminal defendant of their right to have an
    attorney present during any questioning and to have an attorney present. When police fail to give
    a criminal defendant their Miranda Warning any confessions made by the suspect will be
    excluded as well as any evidence that is obtained. This includes the gun. Even if the police had
    given the Miranda Warning to the suspect they illegally entered his home and seized the gun
    evidence.
    Even though the police were let into the boardinghouse by someone else they did not get
    permission to enter the bedroom of the suspect. The bedroom in the boardinghouse would be
    considered Defendant Ortez private residents. In order to intrude upon the private resident of the
    defendant police need a warrant or exigent circumstances. In this case the defendant was a sleep
    in his bed and posed no immediate danger. Police had time to get a warrant to constitutionally
    protect the evidence they obtained and had a legal obligation to read the defendant his Miranda
    Warning instead of illegally questioning the suspect.
    When police fail to follow the law they risk the evidence being tainted and excluded from
    the court process. When police questioned Ortez about the gun without warning him of his right
    to remain silent they obtained evidence illegally. Police are responsible for collecting evidence
    but only first applying the law and protecting the rights of the criminal defendant. When police
    fail to follow the law and uphold defendants rights the victims suffer when evidence is excluded
    and guilty offenders go free. Any evidence police obtain from the illegal questioning can result
    Court Case Studies 7

    in the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine being initiated and this evidence also being excluded
    from the court case.
















    Court Case Studies 8

    References
    Clancy, T. (2010). The Fourth Amendments Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Right. Ohio
    State Journal of Criminal law, 10(1): 358-360
    Fauver, D. (2003). "Evidence Not Suppressed Despite Failure to Give Miranda Warning." Daily
    Record
    Merit, M. (2012). Jailhouse informants and the sixth amendment: is the U.S. Supreme Court
    adequately protecting an accusers right to counsel? Retrieved July 29, 2014 from
    http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bclawr/44_4/15_FMS.htm
    Rodriquez, S. (2011). Fruit of Poisonous Tree Doctrine. Retrieved July 29, 2014 from
    http://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/Legal-Dictionary/F/FIRS-FZ/Fruit-of-Poisonous

    S-ar putea să vă placă și