Facebook
Home General Criminal Law Page 4

General Criminal Law

The Purpose of Criminal Defense Attorneys

The Purpose of Criminal Defense Attorneys

If an individual is facing criminal charges for violating the law, they should enlist the help of a criminal defense attorney. Criminal defense attorneys are responsible for developing convincing and effective criminal defenses for their clients. They will be required to convince a jury that their client is not responsible for the crime in question. If there is sufficient evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt, then a criminal defense attorney must employ special defenses to convince the jury that his or her client is not or cannot be held accountable for the crime of which he or she is accused.
If an individual is involved in a criminal case and they cannot afford to hire a criminal defense attorney, then they may be qualified to receive a court-appointed attorney. However, court-appointed criminal defense attorneys are generally unprepared to successfully handle a criminal case. In most cases, these court-appointed attorneys are paid very little to work very long hours, and thus, they are naturally rarely successful in adequately defending their clients.
Thousands of criminal defense attorneys are located throughout the United States and so it should not be difficult to find one near one’s location. Experienced criminal defense attorneys will be effective and successful in negating or decreasing their client’s criminal liability. As a result, the defendant will not be convicted of a crime, or they will receive a less severe sentence than they would have without the assistance of a criminal defense attorney.
A criminal defense attorney takes on many different roles throughout the legal process. Obviously, criminal defense attorneys are responsible for defending their client. However, they have many other important responsibilities and they take part in various essential processes. These lawyers engage in a great deal of negotiation with the prosecutor in order to decrease the severity of the criminal charges that the defendant will face, as well as to lighten the sentence that they stand to receive as a result of their actions.
A criminal defense attorney will also be able to provide his or her client with a realistic opinion about their future, as well as the severity and the reality of their case. They will be able to supply the defendant with valuable insight into the best course of action to take and will know the consequences of certain actions and behaviors. They will also fully understand all of the aspects of a criminal case with which a defendant would not be familiar if they chose to represent themselves.

The Criticisms Life Imprisonment

The Criticisms Life Imprisonment

In recent years, the sentence of the death penalty for individuals who are responsible for murder has decreased a great deal in favor of a life penalty in prison. Individuals who have committed a serious offense may be sentenced to spend life in prison. This is a common punishment for offenders who have murdered another person or for individuals who are responsible for sexual battery. 
A life penalty is also a punishment that is often inflicted upon repeat offenders or career criminals. However, the term “life in prison” does not necessarily imply that a criminal will spend the rest of their life in prison. In many cases, it is possible for a criminal to receive parole after they have served a certain portion of their sentence. In general, an individual who has been sentenced to a life penalty in prison must remain in jail for at least twenty years before they can be considered for parole. 
The parole board takes into account a wide variety of factors when considering parole, including how long the offender has been in prison, whether the criminal has displayed good behavior throughout their time in prison, and whether they have taken advantage of the programs and services that are offered by the correctional facility. However, not all individuals who are sentenced to a life penalty will be eligible for parole. Many criminals, both juvenile and adult, are sentenced to life without parole.
Very few countries permit the sentence of life without parole. In the United States, this is a common sentence that is often handed down when it is not warranted. Next to the death penalty, life without parole is the most severe punishment that a criminal may receive. This sentence may be justified in cases of high treason or serial murder. Individuals who are responsible for carrying out multiple murders have planned and carried out this heinous crime numerous times without remorse for their actions. 
However, life without parole is often handed to individuals who could be rehabilitated. For example, an individual who kills someone in the process of robbing a store may be sentenced to a life penalty without the chance of release. The offender’s crimes were atrocious and appalling, and for the rest of their life they will be required to live with the knowledge that they ended another person’s life. This does not mean that they cannot change or reform their ways, though. 
If an individual is given a life penalty with the opportunity for parole, they will still be required to serve twenty years for the crimes that they have committed before they are considered for parole. The parole board will only grant parole if they feel that the criminal is not likely to repeat their crimes. A person can change a great deal over the course of twenty years. Denying an individual the opportunity for parole is the same thing as stating that humans are incapable of learning, converting, and improving. 
Most individuals do not maintain the same beliefs, morals, and principles that they did ten years ago. Therefore, some would say it is ridiculous to assume that twenty years after an individual has committed a crime that they will still be the same dangerous person that they were twenty years prior. A criminal can change, just like all other individuals. There are many educational and treatment programs that are offered in correctional facilities. 
An individual who is provided with access to an education, counseling, and substance abuse treatment are given the tools that they need to succeed in life. Spending twenty years in prison gives a criminal the opportunity to reflect on their actions and to discover who they are. Due to the Eighth Amendment, it seems unconstitutional to take away an individual’s life and providing them with no hope for a future. Many criminals would consider life without parole to be a more harsh and severe punishment then the death penalty. 
At least execution would not require the convict to remain in prison with no hope of ever returning to a community. Life without parole places an individual behind bars with no prospect of ever attaining a future or returning to their life. A life penalty without the possibility of release is especially harsh and cruel in instances in which the offender was under the age of eighteen at the time of the crime. Research indicates that the brain continues to develop and mature throughout childhood and adolescence. 
Therefore, a teenager does not have the cognitive ability to fully understand the consequences and the effects of their actions. They also do not have the ability to effectively control impulses and emotions, or to think critically about their actions. There is a very good chance that children can be rehabilitated and can return to society as a productive and helpful individual. Currently there are over 2,000 juvenile offenders serving life sentences without the chance of parole. 
Over seventy of these individuals were under the age of fifteen at the time the crime was committed. Quantel Lotts received life without parole for stabbing his stepbrother to death when he was fourteen. The incident began as horseplay utilizing toy weapons, but it escalated and became fatal when a knife was introduced into the play. 
Sara Kruzan was also sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of release for murdering an abusive pimp who began sexually assaulting her and using her for prostitution when she was only thirteen years old. After three years of being subjected to this abuse Kruzan snapped and killed her tormentor. She was sixteen when the crime occurred. Despite the conditions surrounding the murder, the judge sentenced her to die in a correctional facility without the hope of ever being released. 

The Truth About Wrongful Convictions and Capital Punishment

The Truth About Wrongful Convictions and Capital Punishment

Human beings are not perfect and, therefore, they are capable of making errors. When an individual is being accused of committing a heinous crime such as aggravated murder, both the authorities and the public want to see justice served and the perpetrator punished. However, individuals who are anti-death penalty argue that even with advances in technology, it is easy for a defendant to be wrongly accused of a crime that he or she did not commit. Unless the crime was recorded on a video camera there is no way to know for certain what really occurred.

The court usually places a great deal of weight on the testimony of witnesses, and individuals who are against the death penalty argue that these testimonies are not always accurate or reliable. Anti-death penalty advocates reason that witnesses who are at the scene of a crime are usually terrified at the time that the crime is taking place and they are often not paying attention to the appearance and the features of the perpetrator. 

Therefore, they cannot accurately identify the offender. People who are against the death penalty suggest that a jury can be swayed by the statements of a witness and it is possible for a witness to falsify their testimony. Such was the case in Florida with convict Jesse Tafero.

Jesse Tafero, Sonia Jacobs, and Walter Rhodes were all being accused of killing two police officers. Rhodes was offered a less severe sentence if he testified against Tafero and Jacobs. Rhodes claimed that the pair played a significant role in the murder of the policemen and they were both sentenced to be executed. A year later, Rhodes retracted his testimony and declared that he was solely responsible for the crime. 

Despite this confession, Tafero was still executed. Individuals who fight against the death penalty frequently cite the Tafero case as one of the instances in which an innocent person has been executed for a crime for which he or she was not responsible.

Since the death penalty was reestablished, over 130 individuals who were convicted of murder have been exonerated from death row as a result of new evidence suggesting their innocence. Anti-death penalty activists cite this as one of the primary reasons that the death penalty should be abolished. Just because 130 innocent individuals have been spared capital punishment, this does not mean that there are not still innocent individuals on death row awaiting execution.

Records indicate that numerous convicts maintained that they were innocent of the crimes that they had been convicted of up until the day they were executed. Chances are that some of these convicts were indeed innocent and they were executed for someone else's crimes. Individuals who are against the death penalty argue that as long as the death penalty remains intact, there is a chance that innocent men and women will be executed for a crime that they did not commit.

Anti-death penalty advocates illustrate that as a result of technological advances and the advent of DNA evidence, many convicts have been released from prison because evidence indicated that they were innocent or that someone else was guilty of the crime of which they were convicted. 

Individuals who argue against the death penalty suggest that if this is true of convicts who are serving time in prison, it is likely also true of convicts who are awaiting execution on death row. It is fairly nonsensical to risk killing an innocent individual when incarceration can punish criminals and diminish the threat that they pose to society by keeping them behind bars. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact wrongful death lawyers.

Voluntary Intoxication Overview

Voluntary Intoxication Overview

Criminal law requires that both actus reus mens rea be present in order for an individual to be held criminally liable for a crime. Therefore, an individual who is responsible for an illegal act that has resulted in harm or damage must not only have taken part in the detrimental activity but must also have had the intent to partake in this behavior.
Many defense attorneys attempt to employ a criminal defense that will prove that the defendant did not possess the mens rea, or criminal intent, at the time of the crime. There are various different ways that a lawyer may do this. 
A criminal defense attorney may claim that the injury or the harm that occurred was accidental and that their client had no intention to cause any damage. In some cases, it is apparent that the crime was intentional, so the criminal defense attorney may adopt a new strategy to discredit the mens rea and they may try to utilize the automatism defense, or perhaps the intoxication defense.
In general, criminal law and judicial authorities do not recognize intoxication as an adequate defense for criminal behavior. It is true that the consumption of alcohol is responsible for decreased inhibitions. When individuals are under the influence of drugs or alcohol they are much more likely to take part in activities in which they would not normally partake. 
It is very common for intoxicated people to act on impulses and they often fail to consider the consequences of their actions. The chance that an individual will suffer from domestic violence increases a great deal when their partner consumes drugs or alcohol. It is also possible for an individual to consume so much alcohol that they are virtually unaware of the activities that they are participating in and they do not remember their behavior the following day.
Despite this, intoxication is not recognized as an acceptable criminal defense under most divisions of criminal law. The consumption of drugs or alcohol does not justify partaking in illegal activities, especially if the illegal act resulted in damage or injury to another person. However, utilizing intoxication as a criminal defense may nullify certain specific intent crimes.
Under criminal law, a specific intent crime requires the offender to have acted knowingly and to also have behaved with a certain purpose or intent. It is possible for a perpetrator to knowingly take part in illegal activities without any specific purpose. These crimes are known as general intent crimes. 
Battery with the purpose of killing the victim is one example of a crime with specific intent. An intoxicated individual may take part in battery, but the court may find that due to the defendant’s severe intoxication, the intent to kill the victim was nullified. Therefore, the defendant will only be charged with battery.
Murder is another example of a crime that has a specific intent. An intoxicated individual who is responsible for murder may be charged with manslaughter because the specific intent was deficient. When an individual voluntarily becomes so intoxicated that they have no understanding of the severity of their actions, they are acting negligently and carelessly. 
While criminal law generally does not recognize intoxication as an acceptable defense to justify a crime, if a defendant can prove that they were intoxicated at the time of the crime they may be considered less culpable and receive a lighter sentence

A General Guide to Criminal Laws

A General Guide to Criminal Laws

There are major aspects of a crime that must be satisfied in order for an individual to be convicted of a crime. If one of these aspects is missing, then a crime was not committed. The major aspects of a crime have been established in order to ensure that an individual who is being accused of a crime is actually guilty of the crime in question. 

They not only address the illegal actions that have occurred, but also the offender's state of mind at the time that the crime was committed. When all of the major aspects have been satisfied, an individual is responsible for a detrimental crime and they may be punished accordingly. However, if one of the major aspects are not fulfilled, then the defendant cannot be held criminally liable for the harm and damage that has occurred.

Element of the Crime

The United States criminal justice system has been designed in order to help ensure that individuals who are being accused of a crime are only convicted if they have in fact committed a crime. The punishments for violating criminal law are often very severe and oppressive. They often cause the offender to experience a large financial burden or to miss out on many years of life.

A criminal sentence will have very serious consequences on the life and the future of an individual who has been convicted of a crime. Therefore, it is essential to guarantee that an individual who is imposed a sentence for a crime actually deserves the sentence that he or she is receiving. In order to help ensure this, various elements of the crime must be addressed and satisfied. If all of the necessary elements of a crime are not satisfied, then an individual cannot be convicted of committing a crime.

Mens Rea

Mens rea is one extremely important aspect of all criminal cases. For an individual to be found guilty of committing a crime, the State must not only prove that the offender committed the crime, but also that the perpetrator had a guilty mens rea at the time of the crime. The term mens rea refers to an individual's state of mind at the time that he or she takes part in a criminal activity.

In order for an individual to be held liable for his or her actions, the State must be able to prove that the defendant had the intention to act illegally. The State may also prove that the defendant acted dangerously with the knowledge that his or her actions were harmful and that those actions may injure another individual. 

In many cases, a defense lawyer will try to argue that his or her client cannot be found guilty because he or she did not have the intent to harm another person or to break the law. If a criminal intent is not present, then an individual cannot be charged with committing a crime. 

It is possible for an individual to take part in criminal behavior by accident. There are many examples in which an individually unknowingly or unintentionally takes part in a crime. Another person may be seriously injured by the offender, but if the perpetrator did not have a guilty mens rea, he or she cannot be punished.

Actus Reus

One of the most important aspects of a criminal law case is the actus reus. Without an actus reus there would be no case at all. Unlike the mens rea, the actus reus has nothing to do with an individual's intent or state of mind at the time that he or she committed a crime. The term actus reus refers to the crime itself. It is the criminal activity that takes place and that is being analyzed in a criminal investigation. 

Actus reus may include an extremely wide range of activities. During a criminal investigation it is essential that the State collect the evidence that is necessary to convince the jury that the individual in question is the individual who is responsible for committing a crime. 

This is often done by collecting all of the objects and the information that may help to support the case. It is also accomplished by finding witnesses and obtaining testimony from them. The testimony of witnesses plays an extremely important role in a criminal investigation.

Once the actus reus has been established and it has been proven that the defendant is responsible for committing the crime in question, it is essential to prove that he or she had the criminal intent to break the law before he or she can be found guilty.

Concurrence

Concurrence is one extremely important element of a crime. If a prosecutor cannot prove that concurrence has occurred, then the defendant cannot be convicted of committing a crime. In order for concurrence to be satisfied an individual must have the intention to violate the law and cause harm at the time that the criminal activity has occurred.

The actus reus and mens rea must occur at the same time in order for an individual to be held liable for the harm that has occurred. Therefore, if an individual is responsible for accidentally causing harm to a hated enemy upon whom he or she had previously wished harm, he or she will not be found guilty of committing a crime. This is because even though he or she may be happy about the injuries that the victim has sustained, he or she did not intend to cause those injuries at the time that the victim received them. Without concurrence there is no crime. 

Causation

The relationship between the criminal activity that took place and the effects of that activity is causation. Causation is the actus reus in association with the mens rea. In most cases, the causation is the action that an individual took part in to cause a specific outcome. 

For example, an individual may be angry with another person and in an attempt to cause him or her harm the offender may hit the individual with a weapon. The intent and the action of striking the individual was the causation of the severe and extensive injuries that the victim occurred. 

In general, the term causation refers to an action or behavior. However, causation may also include the failure to take part in required and necessary actions. In order for an individual to be convicted of a crime, the causation must first be determined and the court must prove that it was the defendant who committed the crime. 

Strict Liability

Strict liability is a legal practice that has been the cause of some controversy. In the majority of criminal cases, the State must prove that the defendant was not only guilty of the crime in question, but that the offender had the intention to break the law and to cause injury or damage to another person or another person's property. However, in cases of strict liability these usual laws are not upheld.

In strict liability cases, the State does not need to prove that the defendant had a criminal intent when the injury or the damage occurred. In instances where this applies, the defendant’s intent and state of mind are not taken into consideration. All that the prosecutor must prove is that the damage or injury was caused by someone or something for which the defendant was responsible.

There are many different situations in which strict liability is evoked. The damage that is sustained may range a great deal from minor property damage to death. In most cases of strict liability, the defendant will be required to compensate the victim for the damage or the injury that has occurred.

Personal Offenses

There are various different crimes that may occur against an individual. Personal offenses occur when an individual takes part in criminal activities that result in physical injury or harm to the well-being of another person. This type of criminal behavior varies a great deal in severity. It can range from threats and minor assault to brutal rape.

An individual who is the victim of a personal offense may sustain extensive physical injury as a result of his or her traumatic experiences. It may also result in the victim's death. Personal offenses may cause an individual to suffer from long term psychological effects along with the physical wounds that he or she receives.

In many instances, individuals who are responsible for subjecting another person to physical harm are sentenced to extensive punishments. The penalties will vary a great deal based on the severity of the crime that they committed. Threats and minor assault are punished much more leniently than aggravated assault.

Personal offenses violate the safety and the freedom of another individual. Therefore, the punishment must fit the crime and individuals who continue to pose a threat to other people must be incarcerated.

Property Offenses

While personal offenses are criminal behavior that adversely affect the health and the well-being of another individual, property offenses affect an individual’s property. An individual is responsible for committing a property offense when he or she damages another individual’s property or when he or she takes objects that do not belong to him or her.

There are many different types of property offenses. Like personal offenses, they vary a great deal in severity. A property offense may include minor shoplifting, in which an offender takes a small item from a store. It may also include arson, which is extremely dangerous and may cause severe physical injury to individuals who are around when it occurs.

Individuals who are responsible for property offenses have various different motives for taking part in the criminal behavior that they carry out. In many cases, property offenses are punished less harshly than personal offenses. However, this is not always the case. Property offense are extremely dangerous and often result in death. Therefore, these crimes are taken very seriously and are punished accordingly.

Participatory Offenses

It is extremely common for criminals to be apprehended and put on trial for their crimes. Every year, millions of individuals are sentenced to various penalties for criminal activity that they have taken part in. These individuals are often burglars, rapists, and murderers. 

People expect these individuals to be caught and punished for their crimes. But people often give little consideration to the individuals who are responsible for participatory offenses.

Participatory offenses occur when an individual is responsible for assisting with or taking part in some aspect of a criminal endeavor. This individual may not be the primary actor in the venture, but he or she may have in some way contributed to delinquent activity. He or she may have provided the primary actor with financial assistance or advice.

There are various different types of participatory offenses and they are all considered to be very serious crimes. Individuals who are responsible or taking part in participatory offenses may experience extensive legal repercussions for their actions.

Necessity as a Criminal Defense

Necessity as a Criminal Defense

There have been numerous instances in which an individual violates criminal law because they feel that there is no other feasible option. In instances such as this, a defense attorney may choose to utilize the defense of necessity. The defense of necessity is not often recognized as a common defense in criminal law, but it has been widely used in common law. 
In order for the claim of necessity to be recognized as an acceptable defense, various different factors must be satisfied. Primarily, the defendant must have taken part in the criminal activity in order to avoid more severe or significant injury or damage. In instances such as these, the defendant may have been provided with two alternatives. 
While the first alternative may not have resulted in a violation of criminal law on the part of the defendant, it may have resulted in further injury or destruction. Therefore, the defendant may have chosen to take part in the second option that they were presented with, because even though this option may have violated criminal law, it may have also reduced suffering or damage. 
Many courts recognize that in some very specific and rare instances, an individual may be required to break the law out of necessity, in order to reduce the extent of the harm or the destruction that occurs. One commonly used example of the defense of necessity surrounds hit-and-run laws. Many states have developed legislation that makes it a violation of criminal law for an individual to leave the scene of an accident if they were involved in it. 
If an individual is involved in an accident and their passenger is severely injured, it could be fatal to wait for emergency services to arrive at the scene of the accident. Nevertheless, if the individual chooses to leave the site of the accident, then they are breaking the law. 
If the individual ensures that the people in the other vehicle are okay and chooses to leave the accident site in order to rush their passenger to the hospital, then the defense attorney will utilize the necessity defense, as the defendant believed that in order to save their passenger’s life it was essential to get them to a hospital immediately.
The necessity defense is only effective if there is no legal alternative available to avoid the harm or the damage at the time that the illegal behavior took place. The defense attorney must prove that the illegal behavior stopped more extensive harm or damage from occurring. If a diabetic individual is shopping in a pharmacy and their blood sugar increases severely, their body needs to receive insulin right away. 
If insulin is not administered then the victim may go into diabetic shock and may even slip into a coma. If the pharmacist at the store assesses the situation and decides to provide the individual with insulin without a prescription, then technically the pharmacist has taken part in an illegal activity and may face criminal charges. However, the pharmacist determined that to the best of their knowledge failure to provide the victim with the medicine may have resulted in severe harm to the victim and potentially even death. 
Therefore, the pharmacist was acting out of necessity and the defense attorney will utilize this defense in order to negate any criminal liability that the pharmacist may posses. In criminal law, the defense of necessity is tricky and complex. However, when utilized correctly and appropriately, this defense may be successful in negating or decreasing the criminal responsibility of the defendant.

The Life Imprisonment of Juveniles

The Life Imprisonment of Juveniles

One subject that is often the topic of argument, not only by the public but also within the Supreme Court, is the practice of imposing a life sentence on a juvenile. It is possible for a juvenile to receive a life sentence without the prospect of being granted parole upon these individuals.
 
 
As noted, this topic has sparked a great deal of debate within the Supreme Court, especially surrounding the cases of Joe Sullivan and Terrance Graham. Joe Sullivan was 13 when he was convicted of raping an elderly woman in Florida. In Florida, this crime is punishable by a life sentence and Sullivan was sentenced to life in prison with no potential for parole. Graham received a life sentence as a result of an aggressive burglary that occurred while he was out on parole for a previous crime.
 
 
The Supreme Court continues to debate the Constitutionality of taking a child's entire life away from them and telling them that they have no chance at any future. A child may develop into a completely different person as an adult. Therefore, many advocates consider it to be extremely harsh to sentence a minor to life in prison without parole, especially when the crime did not involve murder.

Using Entrapment as a Criminal Defense

Using Entrapment as a Criminal Defense

One of the less frequently utilized criminal defenses is the defense of entrapment. Entrapment cases are extremely difficult to prove and are often problematic and complex. Entrapment occurs when a Government agent or an officer of the law coerces another person into committing a criminal act. These agents are usually police officers.
In order for the entrapment defense to be effective, a defense attorney must not only prove that a Government official convinced the defendant to take part in the crime, but also that the offender would have been very unlikely to partake in the criminal behavior without his or her persuasion. 
In the large majority of entrapment cases, the Government agent that is responsible for this coercion is an individual who is looking for a scapegoat for a crime that they are planning to commit. They may utilize their position and take advantage of their power in order to gain necessary information and resources to commit the crime that they are plotting.
Entrapment will occur when this Government official convinces an innocent individual to commit a crime. The agent may attempt to make the crime appear very attractive to the offender by guaranteeing that they will receive copious amounts of money or by claiming that the activity is legal. A Government official may be charged with entrapment if they have developed and implanted an imperative or pressing motive in the mind of the offender.
For example, if the agent has formed a strong bond of friendship with the defendant and has caused the defendant to believe that partaking in a crime will greatly improve the agent’s situation, then the defendant may choose to partake in the criminal activity in order to benefit their friend instead of for personal benefit or gain. This type of behavior on the part of police officers may constitute entrapment cases. Entrapment cases may also ensue if a police officer pressures an individual into partaking in a crime through the use of force or threats of violence.
In many entrapment cases, a defendant is being tried for a crime because a Government official was resolved to frame an innocent individual for criminal activity. This may result from planting evidence that causes the defendant to appear guilty of the crime in question. There are many different ways that entrapment may occur, but it is essential that the defense attorney be able to prove that the defendant would not have taken part in the activity without the coercion of the Government agent.
Utilizing undercover agents that pose as drug dealers is not considered to be a form of entrapment. Therefore, if an individual purchases drugs from an undercover cop or if they sell drugs to an undercover cop, the entrapment defense will not be successful in negating their criminal liability. The Government official must not only provide the defendant with the opportunity to take part in criminal activity, but must play an active role in coercing the defendant and convincing them to take part in illegal behavior.

Excessive Government Involvement In Criminal Defense

Excessive Government Involvement In Criminal Defense

The criminal defense of outrageous government conduct is often confused with the defense of entrapment. Government conduct is rarely an effective defense for criminal activity, but there have been a few cases in which a court overturned an initial conviction due to the misconduct of police during a criminal investigation.
For example, in the 1978 Supreme Court case, People v. Isaacson, the New York State Police abused a young man named J.D. Breniman until he had answered their questions and admitted to extensive drug use. The police then coerced him into acting as an informant and made him believe that he would receive a lighter sentence if he helped them to apprehend other drug dealers. 
Breniman phoned a friend and informed him of his dire situation and the need to find drugs that he could sell in order to raise the money that he needed for a defense attorney. The defendant, who was a graduate student in Pennsylvania, agreed to try to help his struggling friend. He had committed no prior drug offenses and he had very little experience using illegal substances. 
Breniman convinced the defendant to meet him in New York State in order to make the exchange, where the defendant was apprehended by police. The defendant was then charged with the sale of illegal drugs and was sentenced to incarceration. 
In this case, the Supreme Court found the behavior of the New York State police to be outrageous and unfair. Therefore, the original ruling was overturned and the defendant was acquitted of the charges

The Separate Jurisdictions of Federal Law

The Separate Jurisdictions of Federal LawWhen the United States Constitution established the Federal Government, the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal Government to maintain a limited amount of power. The purpose of the Federal Government was not to create and enforce criminal laws. 

1...3456Page 4 of 6
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©

Attorneys, Get Listed

Let's Do It
X