R. v Burns case Brief Case Facts The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State. In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia‚ posing as a mob boss‚ it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while Rafay watched (para.10). They
Premium Appeal Crime Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
MEMORANDUM OF LAW To: Kimberly D. Beard‚ Esq. From: Laura Gardner Re: Brandon Berry‚ State of Georgia v. Berry Date: February 27‚ 2013 QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Child Was Not in the Defendant’s Care? II. Can the Defendant be Charged With Cruelty to Children When the Elements Have Not Been Met? STATEMENT OF FACTS On June 16‚ 1998 Jamie June (Jamie) completed a detox program for alcohol abuse and she then started Alcoholics
Premium Jury Law Court
Death-Qualified Jury It was determined in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois‚ 391 U.S. 510 (1968) that upon the trail and conviction of said name petitioner for murder was sentenced to the death penalty. However their was challenge for cause based on an Illinois statute‚ that allows for any individual juror member that when question at the point of being accepted as potential jurors. If it is determined that he or she would rule in favor of the death penalty‚
Premium Capital punishment Jury Law
later found guilty. The petitioner claimed that "stop and frisk" constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968‚ the Supreme Court established the standard for allowing police officers to perform a stop and frisk of a suspect in Terry v. Ohio case. Furthermore‚ a stop and frisk is detaining a person by law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation‚ accompanied by
Premium Police Crime Constable
Clements v Clements case. This case is of great significance which revolves around a severe motorcycle accident that took place from 2009 to 2012‚ which resulted in the plaintiff‚ Mrs Clements suffering severe traumatic injuries. The verdict still remains undecided in the Supreme Court of Canada based on the improper use of the But For Test and The Material Contributions Test. The abundance of information presented in the three court systems depict why is why it is such a difficult case to solve
Premium Law Jury Crime
Bush v Schiavo 885 So. 2d 321 (2004) a. Plaintiff: Jeb Bush‚ Governor of Florida b. Defendant: Michael Schiavo‚ Spouse of Theresa Schiavo II. Court Decision By: Supreme Court of Florida III. Procedural History: Mr. Schiavo requested the guardianship court to permit him to end the life-prolonging procedures that were supporting his wife‚ who was in a persistent vegetative state. Theresa Schiavo’s parents‚ Robert and Mary Schindler‚ opposed the motion and brought the case in to trial. After the
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Court
of 5 feet 2 inches. (Dothard v. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977) Rawlinson’s perused her arguments that weight wasn’t an issue to perform the necessary job duties of a corrections officer because of her weight. Rawlinson’s filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. Rawlinson’s continue with a civil complaint filed by Southern Poverty Law Center and district complaint that’s known as a Supreme Court Case Dothard V. Rawlinson‚ 433 U.S. 321 (1977)
Premium Rape Gender Sexual intercourse
Mapp v. Ohio‚ noteworthy court case of 1961. The US Supreme Court decided that when the state officers attained evidence through illegal searches and seizures might not be admissible into criminal trials. The case was about a Cleveland lady‚ Dolly Mapp‚ who was held for having obscene materials. Law enforcement had learned the materials in Dolly Mapp house during their illegal search. When the state convicted‚ Dolly Mapp appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her argument was that her constitutional
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
CASE NOTE MUSUMECI V WINADELL PTY LTD KYLE CROSS I BACKGROUND INFORMATION Full Citation Musumeci v Winadell Pty Ltd (1994) 34 New South Wales Law Reports 723 Parties Musumeci‚ lessee (Plaintiff) Winadell Pty Ltd‚ lessor (Defendant) Date 4 August 1994 Court Supreme Court of New South Wales (NSWSC) Coram Santow J II LITIGATION HISTORY This case is a first instance decision. The plaintiff sought claim for damages‚ and claim for relief against forfeiture. III BRIEF STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS The
Premium
In the present case‚ the question is whether Joe Smith parent can file a lawsuit because he was discriminated against due to his race‚ sex‚ national origin‚ religion‚ and/or financial means. Like in the Yick Wo case‚ Smith is discriminated due to his national origin. Even though‚ his origin is white and the admissions policy might appear neutral to some‚ but it is applied unequally to whites. In DeFunis v Odegaard‚ this case was ruled moot because Defunis was in his last year of law school‚ so the
Premium United States Discrimination Race