Preview

Summary Of The Judge Nunley's Court Case

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
336 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Summary Of The Judge Nunley's Court Case
Judge Nunley held the court cases at the Robert T. Matsui Federal Courthouse, located at 501 I street in Sacramento, California. I attended the courthouse on April 6, 2017, from 1:45pm to 2:45pm in courtroom: No. 2 on the 15th floor.
I attended two waivers of indictment, arraignment and change of plea cases. The cases involved the U.S. versus Hakob Sergoyan and the U.S. versus Stanislav Sarber. They both where tried for the same crime, and ended up presenting themselves to the Judge at the same time, but with different attorneys. In their arraignment, the judge went over their rights and the different things they may do to defend themselves. Shortly after the prosecutor went over their charges and some of the facts to the case. In the end, they both made guilty pleas. The judge then asked the prosecutor whether to remand the case or keep the defendants out of custody until there trial. The prosecutor in due course decided to keep them out of custody until there next trial.
…show more content…
This case involved the U.S. versus Nicholas Votaw. He was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which he plead guilty. He was originally presented with the consequences of pleading guilty and basically what could happen if he plead guilty. He voluntarily pleas guilty, giving up some of his rights that are originally granted before pleading guilty. The judge then proceeded to ask the defendant basic questions about his career and his involvements in the past couple of days, before laying out the case and case number to the defendant. He was then read his Miranda rights and his rights at trial. Nicholas Votaw was also granted the right to remain out of jail until his trial as long as he didn’t violate any laws or else his case would be

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In July of 2000 Curtis Williams was indicted by a grand jury in Williamson County, Texas for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. While under indictment, Williams traveled to Louisiana from Texas on a Greyhound bus. The bus Williams was traveling on was scheduled to make a stop at the Shreveport Greyhound Bus terminal on September 12,…

    • 857 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Facts: Terry Hutchison was a self-employed lawyer until two years ago when he retired. He had a…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    On November 5, 1983, defendants Elijah Anton Askov, Ralph Hussey, Samuel Gugliotta, and Edward Melo were charged with attempting to commit extortion against Peter Belmont. The following men Askov, Hussey, and Melo had existing charges on possession of weapons, pointing a firearm, and assault with a weapon. The defendants had been in business with Belmont for supplying exotic dancers to licensed premises. Belmont was offered to pay 50% commission to run a business with Melo and Gugliotta in the Toronto area. However, Belmont refused and contacted the police to file reports. On November 12th, Belmont and his bodyguard were approached by the defendants in a tavern which was under surveillance. Melo and Askov were arrested on scene. Hussey ran away but later turned himself in and was charged on November 14th. Gugliotta was arrested on November 30th. The defendants Melo, Hussey, Askov were denied bail and were placed in custody for 6 months. On May 7th, the three men were ordered to…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nec Vs Duke Case Summary

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Facts- Duke University allowed a female to try out for a male football team. In doing so Heather Sue Mercer should have had equal opportunity in making the squad. Duke University operates a Division I college football team. During the period relevant to this appeal (1994-98), appellate Fred Goldsmith was head coach of the Duke football team and appellant Heather Sue Mercer was a student at the school.…

    • 463 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: William E. Story had promised his nephew, William E. Story II, $5,000 if his nephew would abstain from drinking alcohol, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew reached 21 years of age. The uncle responded to his nephew in a letter dated February 6, 1875 in which he told his nephew that he would fulfill his promise. The uncle died a couple years later without sending the money to the nephew.…

    • 981 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The second of the Supreme Court Cases to be discussed is Miranda V. Arizona. The importance of this case is that Miranda was interrogated without knowledge of his 5th amendment rights. In this specific case, the police arrested Miranda from his home in order to take him into investigation at the Phoenix police station. While Miranda was put on trial, he was not informed that he had a right to an attorney. From this the officers were able to retrieve a signed written statement from Miranda. Most importantly, this letter stated that Miranda had full knowledge of his legal rights. From the evidence found, Miranda was sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. From here the Supreme Court stated that, “...Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession…” (Miranda V Arizona).…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages

    * The second Defendant, Michael Vignera, was arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for eight hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney. There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.…

    • 671 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    While in custody, Miranda was interrogated by police for hours until he signed a written confession. Not once during the interrogation was Miranda informed of his rights to counsel or to remain silent. During the trial his court appointed attorney objected to the admission of the statement on the grounds that Miranda was not informed of his rights. Given the amount of evidence, including the confession itself, the court overruled the objection. After being found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for his crimes, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Due to the fact that Miranda failed to specifically request an attorney, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The case was then forwarded to the Supreme Court along with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v.…

    • 2261 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Case later goes to superior court and rules that initially they did not have to be released – once defendant dropped right to trial they released…

    • 4329 Words
    • 18 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Once the arraignment is over, the case will truly begin, and a strategy will be discussed and put…

    • 1017 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Superior Court ruled that the appeal should be allowed, and that this evidence should be considered inadmissible since the accused chose not to make any statements - he was practicing his right to remain silent. The police violated his right under s. 7 of the Charter by tricking him into opposing his decision, which then made the trial unjust. An undercover police officer must serve the purpose of observation of suspects, rather than actively drawing out evidence or information in violation of the person’s right to remain silent. Seeing as the statements were the only piece of evidence the Crown had in order to be able to prove the individual guilty, it’s evident that under the current conditions, it’s the admission of the evidence rather…

    • 138 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    An attorney can not make decisions for you but a seasons defense attorney would generally know how the prosecutor is in terms of flexibility in plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is where the prosecutor would recommend a lesser sentence or even lower the charges against you in exchange for a guilty plea. In some cases, it may be smart to wait until all the evidence is on the table before making a deal, but the extent of their deal will only go as far as the evidence, the severity of the crime and criminal history. The general goal for plea bargaining is to quickly resolve the case while also obtaining a guilty plea for a lesser sentence. The court would also decide whether or not the suspect would be eligible for bail. Next is the pre-trial hearing. The pre-trial is used to handle specific issues with the case and typically involve the judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, the defendant and sometimes other involved parties like Officer Gassman, an officer testifying for the trial. Pre-trial motions can be filed by both the prosecutor and the defense and their purpose is to better increase their chances of success for the…

    • 1340 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court consolidated four separate court cases with issues concerning the admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations. All the defendants in each of these occurrences offered incriminating evidence during interrogations from police and were not notified prior to the interrogations of their rights granted to them under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Miranda was arrested and taken into custody to a police station where he was identified by the witness. He was questioned for 2 hours by officers without being advised of his right to counsel and then signed a statement that said that his confession was voluntary. ISSUE: Whether the government is required to notify the detained individuals of their constitutional rights granted by the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination prior to the individuals being interrogated by the authorities and assistance of counsel and give a voluntary waiver of these rights as a necessary precondition to police questioning and the giving of a…

    • 647 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Plea Bargain

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In a Frontline Program- The Plea we watched in class there were interviews of people involved in three separate cases that had involved the plea bargain. In this video a man named Charles Gampero had gotten into a fight outside of a bowling alley and walked away leaving the victim unharmed and alive. After he had left the victim had been killed, but Gampero had been charged with second degree murder and attempt to kill. The prosecutors had told Gampero that they would give him a plea of dropping the charges to manslaughter, giving him 7-21 years and that if he didn’t he would get a mandatory 25 to life. Gampero said because he was positive that he was not at fault and had left the victim unharmed he had wanted to take it to trial. In the end Gampero wound up taking the plea and not taking it to trial because the judge had scared him so much by telling him that he would get no less than 25 years if he took it to trial. If Gampero had went to trial he would have had the chance of getting less time than his 7-21 years. The judges are allowed to lie to you like they had to Gampero about getting 25 to life. Another example from this video was Patsy Kelly Jarrett. Jarrett was charged for the murder of a gas station tenant years after the murder. Jarrett was home during the time of the murder and the only evidence was someone saying that it was her. The prosecutors had given her a plea bargain of taking robbery and getting five years and later…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Defendants in a criminal trial are entitled to certain legal rights to ensure they receive a fair trial. The right to choose a trial by judge or jury, and that both judge and jury will be impartial. The accused has the right to appear in person to confront any witnesses and challenge any evidence against them. The right to represent themselves or have an attorney represent them, even if they cannot afford one. Defendants have the right to compel witnesses and evidence by subpoena. The right to a public and speedy trial. Finally, there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be convicted.…

    • 174 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays