Le Barron V State Brief Essay

Issue: Under the state’s tort law, does forgery occur when an individual finds a check written out to cash, and was there any intent to injure or defraud.

Recently in Alabama a man by the name of Anthony Ray Hinton was exonerated from death row after already spending thirty years in prison. Hinton was convicted of two separate fatal shootings of fast food restaurant managers in Birmingham, AL. One on February 25, 1985 shooting a John Davidson, and the second occurrence was on July 2, 1985 making Thomas Vason the second deceased. The evidence brought against him was a revolver that somewhat matched the one Hinton had in his home. There was no physical evidence, no fingerprints and no eyewitnesses linking him to the crime. Also, the revolver was questionable at best due to the fact the gun belonged to his mother who he lived with. Ballistics could not accurately tell if the gun Hinton had was even the weapon used in the shootings because they could not tell if his gun had been fired out of recently. They also could not conclusively say that all the bullets used in the two shootings were fired from the same gun. All in all, Hinton was convicted by a possible bullet match to his gun; and an eyewitness’s testimony from a person who was present at a similar, but different crime that Hinton was never accused of. Hinton coming from an underprivileged area only had a $1,000 to hire a ballistics expert to disprove the allegations. Thus leading to a person whose proposed allegations were questionable. Hinton was found guilty and put on Death Row. After sitting in a jail cell for thirty years he was released after firearms experts

In the scenario, three individuals, Joe, Larry, and Bob, were convicted criminals and who were speeding in a stolen vehicle, when they saw a group of rivals. Joe was in the passenger seat warning the others that he was going to shoot at the rival members with a weapon he concealed it in his waistband; Larry the driver, drove the vehicle closer to the opponents. At the stop sign, Bob, who was in the back seat, left the car because he was on parole and didn’t want to go back to imprisonment. Afterwards, Larry drove past the adversaries as Joe discharged a few shots; one individual was murder and the other was shot in the leg.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

In Houston, Texas, 1992, two gruesome murders were carried out in the house of Juan and Hector Garza, two brothers, after a house party that they had just thrown hours beforehand. Genovevo Salinas, a participant at the party, was deemed a key suspect to the murders. Salinas had been took into custody by HPD and was brought to the police station for further questioning. Here he was questioned and answered freely until the question of “Would the shotgun shells match the shotgun and ammunition you personally own?” (Legal) was presented, he then walked away freely because he was not

Tutt and their minor child when they began arguing over some text messages that she had recently received from another man. Mr. Tutt told her, he was going to “beat her ass” and “give her a reason to talk to someone else”. He then called someone and asked the person on the phone to bring him a gun. Shortly afterwards, a male came out of the nearby apartment carrying a backpack and gave it to the defendant. Mr. Tutt opened the backpack and pulled out handgun wrapped in a t-shirt. The victim stated after unwrapping the gun, he began hitting her face with handgun. Mr. Tutt started driving; the victim thought she was going to die if she stayed in the car, so she jumped out of the moving vehicle to avoid getting hit again. The defendant stopped and got out of the car, grabbed the victim and stated, “Baby I’m sorry, please get back in the car” repeatedly. He then grabbed her and threw her into the back seat where their son was

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Mr. John Barron (Plaintiff), sued the city of Baltimore, Maryland (Defendant) for taking his property without compensation. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had ruined his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor by redirecting the streams by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project (1). The plaintiff argued that the city’s activities had made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most water crafts. As a result, the plaintiff felt his Fifth Amendment right had been violated because the government took his property without just compensation. The state court of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore had unconstitutionally disadvantaged

In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.

(1) Constitutional Question: Does the Fifth Amendment, The Takings Clause, deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property’s owner?

After the event, Nasime mailed the wallet and everything in it back to the owner with a note. The owner then posted the note on Facebook and mailed Nasime twenty dollars for finding and giving her wallet back. Nasime picked up the wallet because he didn’t want a bad person to find it and use it, and he didn’t want to just leave a wallet just sitting there because the person

One of the most important cases in history is the Marbury v. Madison case because this was the first U.S. Supreme court case to exercise the doctrine of judicial review. Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are accountable to review. The dispute was between William Marbury and James Madison whom was the secretary of state under 3rd president Thomas Jefferson, and the Chief Justice John Marshall whom was responsible for constructing and defending the judicial power and the foundation of the American federalism, led the Marbury v. Madison case. The case was about James Madison preventing William Marbury from taking his position in office as justice of the peace for the District of Columbia. Before Thomas Jefferson took office the former president before, John Adams, named forty-two justices and sixteen new circuit court justices in which he signed

To begin, this Court shall review Jurisdiction over this matter. Congress passed a federal statute that reads “The Supreme Court of the United States shall have original Jurisdiction over any cases involving this offense…” as to punishing individuals to three years in prison for the use, transport and/or to consume butter beer. To this, we refer to our Constitution that establishes matters that have original jurisdiction, Art. III S. 2 “The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority… In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction”. The case of Marbury v. Madison interprets matters of original Jurisdiction, “The 1789 act to establish the Judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, however this can only be granted when the Court has original jurisdiction, in al other cases, the Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as law and fact…” furthermore, we consider, if this statute was good law, it would make the state a party, to that we turn to Cohens v. Virginia, a case that reviews the Jurisdiction of this Court in criminal cases, which came to the conclusion that just because a state is involved in a criminal party claim, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over it. As established by the Constitution, and case law

“I found a man’s body in the bushes down by the riverbank. When I checked him, I recognized the man, Steven Walker, and he had this in him,” Ernest said and handed the card to Michael. “I took this out of his pocket.”

Beginning with, Roger stole an older lady’s purse and she was very unhappy about his actions. For starters, Roger took an old woman’s purse, and she angry, as well as disappointed. The story says, when Roger had taken the lady’s bag, she was angry, also disappointed, “The woman said, ‘What did you want to do it for?’ The

Joseph was detained and charge with position of narcotics, flee and evading A.P.O. Reckless driving, obstructing and resisting arrest. The vehicle was towed yard in North Vegas district . Drugs where obtained and placed in a secure envelope. He was lodge with a $5000.00/10% bond. Second passenger was released in the scene, with no