Smith V Cain Ap Go Po

The Supreme Court case of Smith V Cain was an unusual one in which the defendant was claiming that many of his rights were being denied and he was given unfair trial. Smith was being prosecuted for the murder of 5 people in a Louisiana home. The only eye witness was an actual survivor of the shooting whose name was Burl Cain. Cain claimed that Juan Smith was one of the gunmen who murdered 5 innocent people in a Louisiana home. The court case climbed its way from the lower courts due to a writ of Certiorari on January 31st, 2011, and from that point on was sent through a series of juries and decisions in which the original decision of the case was reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court felt that the original claim by Juan Smith that his rights were denied, was plausible and that they needed to certiorari the decision to make sure that Smith was granted another trial. From the Supreme Court’s decision to Certiorari the decision it can be inferred that they wanted to make sure that Juan Smith was rewarded a second and fair trial that would give him a standing chance at actually being escaping the jail time that he would have to serve if he were to actually be convicted of murdering the 5 people in the Louisiana house that day.
The court case of Smith V Cain was taken to the Petit jury in which the evidence was presented was favoring Cain due to the fact that he was an eyewitness who matched Juan Smith to one of the several gunmens at the house in 1995. The Petit jury was selected to hear this particular case in 2011 due to the fact that the Grand Jury is where the cases are sent to decide whether the case should be upheld and proceed to the next court or if the case has no real merit and essentially would be a waste for both of the parties to pursue a farther hearing in a higher court. The petit jury had originally ruled in favor of Cain and had ruled in favor of not granting Smith’s appeal. Smith had appealed saying that the trial was unfair and he didn’t