Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • CRJS 365 Individual Project Week 1

    Încărcat de

    teacher.theacestud
    15 vizualizări2 pagini
    CRJS 365 Individual Project week 1. Get an A++. CRJS365 Individual Project week 1. Get an A++. Please note that you are required to support your views by citing your sources in all assignments. Even if the question asks for your opinion, you are still expected to support your opinion with references to published works and other materials. APA Format is necessary for your assignments when citing references, and assistance on how to do so is available using the APA Citation Center. Choose Library from the top navigation bar. Choose APA Citation Center from the left navigation bar. Click Example Sources. Scroll down and click APA Documentation. For more information on citing your sources, please click on “About this Course” link in the classroom. 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. 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. 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. 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 tol

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    CRJS 365 Individual Project week 1. Get an A++. CRJS365 Individual Project week 1. Get an A++. Please note that you are required to support your views by citing your sources in all assignments. Even if the question asks for your opinion, you are still expected to support your opinion with references to published works and other materials. APA Format is necessary for your assignments when citing references, and assistance on how to do so is available using the APA Citation Center. Choose Library from the top navigation bar. Choose APA Citation Center from the left navigation bar. Click Example Sources. Scroll down and click APA Documentation. For more information on citing your sources, please click on “About this Course” link in the classroom. 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. 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. 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. 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 tol

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    15 vizualizări2 pagini

    CRJS 365 Individual Project Week 1

    Încărcat de

    teacher.theacestud
    CRJS 365 Individual Project week 1. Get an A++. CRJS365 Individual Project week 1. Get an A++. Please note that you are required to support your views by citing your sources in all assignments. Even if the question asks for your opinion, you are still expected to support your opinion with references to published works and other materials. APA Format is necessary for your assignments when citing references, and assistance on how to do so is available using the APA Citation Center. Choose Library from the top navigation bar. Choose APA Citation Center from the left navigation bar. Click Example Sources. Scroll down and click APA Documentation. For more information on citing your sources, please click on “About this Course” link in the classroom. 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. 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. 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. 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 tol

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    &5-6,QGLYLGXDO3URMHFWZHHN*HWDQ$

    &5-6,QGLYLGXDO3URMHFWZHHN*HWDQ$

    3OHDVH QRWH WKDW \RX DUH UHTXLUHG WR VXSSRUW \RXU YLHZV E\ FLWLQJ \RXU VRXUFHV LQ DOO
    DVVLJQPHQWV (YHQ LI WKH TXHVWLRQ DVNV IRU \RXU RSLQLRQ \RX DUH VWLOO H[SHFWHG WR VXSSRUW
    \RXU RSLQLRQ ZLWK UHIHUHQFHV WR SXEOLVKHG ZRUNV DQG RWKHU PDWHULDOV $3$ )RUPDW LV
    QHFHVVDU\IRU\RXUDVVLJQPHQWVZKHQFLWLQJUHIHUHQFHVDQGDVVLVWDQFHRQKRZWRGRVRLV
    DYDLODEOHXVLQJWKH$3$&LWDWLRQ&HQWHU
    &KRRVH/LEUDU\IURPWKHWRSQDYLJDWLRQEDU
    &KRRVH$3$&LWDWLRQ&HQWHUIURPWKHOHIWQDYLJDWLRQEDU
    &OLFN([DPSOH6RXUFHV
    6FUROOGRZQDQGFOLFN$3$'RFXPHQWDWLRQ
    )RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQRQFLWLQJ\RXUVRXUFHVSOHDVHFOLFNRQ$ERXWWKLV&RXUVHOLQNLQWKH
    FODVVURRP
    &DVH
    $ \RXQJ PDQ UREEHG D ZRPDQ LQ D ZRPHQV UHVWURRP DW WKH :DVKLQJWRQ 1DWLRQDO
    0RQXPHQW'XULQJWKHUREEHU\WKHZRPDQKDGDJRRGRSSRUWXQLW\WRVHHWKH\RXQJPDQ
    7KH ZRPDQ LPPHGLDWHO\ UHSRUWHG WKH UREEHU\ DQG GHVFULEHG WKH \RXQJ PDQ ZKR UREEHG
    KHU 7KUHH GD\V ODWHU D \RXQJ PDQ &UDLQ  ZDV LPSURSHUO\ DQG LOOHJDOO\ GHWDLQHG
    3KRWRJUDSKVZHUHWDNHQRIWKH\RXQJPDQDQGDSKRWRJUDSKLFGLVSOD\ DUUD\ ZDVVKRZQ
    WRWKHZRPDQ6KHLPPHGLDWHO\LGHQWLILHG&UDLQDVWKHPDQZKRUREEHGKHUDWJXQSRLQW,Q
    DOLQHXSWKHZRPDQDJDLQLGHQWLILHG&UDLQDVWKHUREEHU$W&UDLQVWULDOIRUDUPHGUREEHU\
    WKH ZRPDQ DSSHDUHG DV D ZLWQHVV DQG LGHQWLILHG WKH GHIHQGDQW DV WKH UREEHU &UDLQ ZDV
    FRQYLFWHG DQG KH DSSHDOHG DUJXLQJ WKDW WKH LQFRXUWLGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZDV WKH IUXLW RI WKH
    SRLVRQRXVWUHHDQGVKRXOGQRWEHXVHGDVHYLGHQFH
    6KRXOGWKH866XSUHPH&RXUWDIILUP&UDLQVFRQYLFWLRQDQGVKRXOGWKHZRPDQVLQ
    FRXUWLGHQWLILFDWLRQEHDOORZHGDVHYLGHQFH":K\"
    &DVH
    &DOLIRUQLD SROLFH RIILFHUV LPSURSHUO\ DUUHVWHG :DWVRQ LQ KLV DSDUWPHQW %HIRUH WDNLQJ
    :DWVRQ WR WKH SROLFH VWDWLRQ DUUDQJHPHQWV KDG WR EH PDGH IRU WKH FDUH RI :DWVRQV FDW
    DQG GRJ ,Q DQ DWWHPSW WR SURYLGH IRU WKH FDUH RI WKHVH DQLPDOV WKH RIILFHUV ZHQW WR WKH
    DSDUWPHQWRIDQHLJKERU 0UV/RSH] WRLQTXLUHLIVKHZRXOGWDNHFDUHRIWKHDQLPDOV0UV
    /RSH] WROG WKH RIILFHUV WKDW WKH\ VKRXOG LQYHVWLJDWH :DWVRQ IRU D UHFHQW EDQN UREEHU\ LQ
    ZKLFKWKHUREEHUKDGSUHVHQWHGKLVGHPDQGLQDQRWHWKUHDWHQLQJWKDWKHKDGQLWURJO\FHULQ
    RQKLVSHUVRQ0UV/RSH]VWDWHGWKDWVKHZDVLQ:DWVRQVDSDUWPHQWRQWKHPRUQLQJRIWKH
    UREEHU\ DQG KH ZDV ZULWLQJ D QRWH DQG KDG DVNHG KHU KRZ WR VSHOO QLWURJO\FHULQ 7KH
    RIILFHUV KDG QRW VXVSHFWHG :DWVRQ RI WKH UREEHU\ EXW WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ WKDW IROORZHG
    SURGXFHGVXIILFLHQWHYLGHQFHWRFRQYLFW:DWVRQRIWKHEDQNUREEHU\$QDSSHDOZDVWDNHQ
    IURP WKH FRQYLFWLRQ DUJXLQJ DPRQJ RWKHU LVVXHV WKDW WKH GHIHQVH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH IUXLW RI
    WKHSRLVRQRXVWUHHGRFWULQHUHTXLUHGVXSSUHVVLRQRIWKHHYLGHQFHWKDWZDVXOWLPDWHO\XVHG
    WRFRQYLFW:DWVRQ

    6KRXOG WKH HYLGHQFH EH VXSSUHVVHG RU VKRXOG LW EH DGPLVVLEOH LQ :DWVRQV WULDO IRU
    DUPHGUREEHU\"([SODLQ
    &DVH
    7KHGHIHQGDQWZKRZDVFKDUJHGZLWKDUREEHU\DQGPXUGHUZDVSODFHGLQDMDLOFHOOZLWKD
    SROLFH LQIRUPDQW 7KH LQIRUPDQW RYHUKHDUG WKH GHIHQGDQW PDNH LQFULPLQDWLQJ VWDWHPHQWV
    WKDWKHSDVVHGRQWRWKHSROLFH
    &DQWKHLQIRUPDQWDSSHDUDVDZLWQHVVDQGWHVWLI\DERXWWKHVWDWHPHQWVKHKHDUGLI
    KH WRRN QR DFWLRQ RWKHU WKDQ PHUHO\ OLVWHQLQJ WR ZKDW WKH GHIHQGDQW KDG WR VD\"
    ([SODLQ
    6KRXOGWKHHYLGHQFHRIWKHGHIHQGDQWVVWDWHPHQWVEHDGPLVVLEOHLIWKHUHZDVDSULRU
    DUUDQJHPHQW ZLWK WKH SROLFH WR SXW WKH LQIRUPDQW LQ D SRVLWLRQ ZKHUH KH FRXOG
    RYHUKHDUWKHGHIHQGDQWVVWDWHPHQWV"([SODLQ
    ,IWKHLQIRUPDQWGHOLEHUDWHO\HOLFLWHGWKHVWDWHPHQWVIURPWKHGHIHQGDQWE\TXHVWLRQV
    DQGFRQYHUVDWLRQVKRXOGWKHHYLGHQFHEHDGPLVVLEOH"([SODLQ
    &DVH
    3ROLFHZHUHLQYHVWLJDWLQJDVKRRWLQJGHDWKRXWVLGHDFDIHLQ'DOODV7H[DV'HIHQGDQW2UWH]
    KDGOHIWWKHVFHQHRIWKHVKRRWLQJDQGKDGUHWXUQHGWRKLVERDUGLQJKRXVHWRVOHHS$WDERXW
     DP IRXU SROLFH RIILFHUV DUULYHG DW WKH SHWLWLRQHUV ERDUGLQJKRXVH ZHUH DGPLWWHG E\ DQ
    XQLGHQWLILHG ZRPDQ DQG ZHUH WROG WKDW WKH SHWLWLRQHU ZDV DVOHHS LQ WKH EHGURRP $OO IRXU
    RIILFHUV HQWHUHG WKH EHGURRP DQG EHJDQ WR TXHVWLRQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU )URP WKH PRPHQW KH
    JDYHKLVQDPHDFFRUGLQJWRWKHWHVWLPRQ\RIRQHRIWKHRIILFHUVWKHSHWLWLRQHUZDVQRWIUHH
    WR JR ZKHUH KH SOHDVHG EXW ZDV XQGHU DUUHVW 7KH RIILFHUV DVNHG KLP LI KH KDG EHHQ WR
    WKH (O )DUOHWR UHVWDXUDQW WKDW QLJKW ZKHQ KH DQVZHUHG \HV KH ZDV DVNHG LI KH RZQHG D
    SLVWRO 7KH SHWLWLRQHU DGPLWWHG WR RZQLQJ RQH $IWHU EHLQJ DVNHG D VHFRQG WLPH ZKHUH WKH
    SLVWRO ZDV ORFDWHG KH DGPLWWHG WKDW LW ZDV LQ WKH ZDVKLQJ PDFKLQH LQ D EDFNURRP RI WKH
    ERDUGLQJKRXVH%DOOLVWLFVWHVWVLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHJXQIRXQGLQWKHZDVKLQJPDFKLQHZDVWKH
    JXQWKDWILUHGWKHIDWDOVKRW
    6KRXOGVWDWHPHQWVRIWKHGHIHQGDQWEHDGPLWWHGDVHYLGHQFH"([SODLQ\RXUDQVZHU
    6KRXOGWKHJXQEHDGPLWWHGDVHYLGHQFH"([SODLQ\RXUDQVZHU

    &5-6,QGLYLGXDO3URMHFWZHHN*HWDQ$

    S-ar putea să vă placă și