Criminal Procedures Topic
At 12:00 p.m., on August 16, 2005, Robert Smith began his journey to freedom down the halls of the prison he called home for the last 2 years. Despite receiving a 5-year sentence, Robert was paroled for good behavior. His lawyer had tried repeatedly to appeal his sentence as a violation of Robert’s Fourth Amendment rights, but the Arizona Supreme Court denied the appeal based on its merits. Now he was walking unbound toward his release.
This was a truly good day, long in the making. As Robert walked down toward his freedom, he recounted his journey to this place.
Robert remembered the thunder of the gavel after the jury read its decision: Guilty on all counts. Although the opening statements made by his lawyer were compelling, the prosecution crystallized a guilty verdict during closing arguments, before the twelve-member jury of his peers even left to deliberate. The prosecution detailed pictures and phone calls as evidence against him, while Robert’s defense corroborated his whereabouts with his ex-girlfriend, claiming the prosecution did not offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Her testimony, however, could not withstand the prosecution’s cross-examination—which poked so many holes in her story, her credibility lacked substance. Robert could only hang his head low when the judge detailed the general principles of evidence and law to the jury.
Robert also remembered the day the cops came to his home and found him in his living room with all those drugs. A warrant was thrown in his face, Miranda rights were read to him, and handcuffs were strapped to his wrists. He was then placed in a police cruiser and taken to the magistrate. Soon thereafter, Robert was released on own recognizance.
In the weeks that followed, the prosecution gave the defense exculpatory evidence while the defense planned its tactics. The prosecutor decided it was a good case to charge. Apparently, the phone conversations the police had recorded were evidence enough to establish probable cause.
Robert Smith experienced an ordeal like no other, and spent two years in prison paying his debt to society. He got into the taxi and left the prison
By restating the events in the proper order. From what sources were the rights afforded this individual derived. Can someone please help and explain
Robert remembered the thunder of the gavel after the jury read its decision: Guilty on all counts. Although the opening statements made by his lawyer were compelling, the prosecution crystallized a guilty verdict during closing arguments, before the twelve-member jury of his peers even left to deliberate. The prosecution detailed pictures and phone calls as evidence against him, while Robert’s defense corroborated his whereabouts with his ex-girlfriend, claiming the prosecution did not offer proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Her testimony, however, could not withstand the prosecution’s cross-examination—which poked so many holes in her story, her credibility lacked substance. Robert could only hang his head low when the judge detailed the general principles of evidence and law to the jury.
Robert also remembered the day the cops came to his home and found him in his living room with all those drugs. A warrant was thrown in his face, Miranda rights were read to him, and handcuffs were strapped to his wrists. He was then placed in a police cruiser and taken to the magistrate. Soon thereafter, Robert was released on own recognizance.
In the weeks that followed, the prosecution gave the defense exculpatory evidence while the defense planned its tactics. The prosecutor decided it was a good case to charge. Apparently, the phone conversations the police had recorded were evidence enough to establish probable cause.
Robert Smith experienced an ordeal like no other, and spent two years in prison paying his debt to society. He got into the taxi and left the prison
Robert also remembered the day the cops came to his home and found him in his living room with all those drugs. A warrant was thrown in his face, Miranda rights were read to him, and handcuffs were strapped to his wrists. He was then placed in a police cruiser and taken to the magistrate. Soon thereafter, Robert was released on own recognizance.
In the weeks that followed, the prosecution gave the defense exculpatory evidence while the defense planned its tactics. The prosecutor decided it was a good case to charge. Apparently, the phone conversations the police had recorded were evidence enough to establish probable cause.
Robert Smith experienced an ordeal like no other, and spent two years in prison paying his debt to society. He got into the taxi and left the prison
By restating the events in the proper order. From what sources were the rights afforded this individual derived? Can someone explain
In order to restate the events in the proper order and understand from what sources the rights afforded to Robert Smith were derived, let's analyze the given information.
1. The Cops Came to Robert's Home and Arrested Him: The police arrived at Robert's home, found him in his living room with drugs, and subsequently arrested him. This event was likely based on probable cause, as indicated by the statement that the phone conversations the police had recorded were evidence enough to establish probable cause.
2. Robert was Read His Miranda Rights: After his arrest, Robert was informed of his Miranda rights. These rights derive from the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which ensures that individuals are aware of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during police interrogations.
3. Robert was Taken to the Magistrate: Following his arrest, Robert was taken to the magistrate. The magistrate is a judicial officer who assists in the initial stages of criminal proceedings, including conducting initial appearances, setting bail, and determining whether there is probable cause for the arrest.
4. Robert was Released on Own Recognizance: After being taken to the magistrate, Robert was then released on his own recognizance. This means that he was allowed to be released from custody without having to pay bail or provide any form of security, based on the presumption that he will appear in court for the subsequent proceedings.
5. Robert's Trial and Conviction: The next significant event in the timeline is Robert's trial. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he received a 5-year sentence. This trial suggests that Robert's rights to a fair trial, including the presumption of innocence, the right to confront witnesses, and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, were derived from the protections provided by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
6. Robert's Lawyer's Appeals: Despite being sentenced to 5 years, Robert's lawyer repeatedly appealed his case, arguing that it violated Robert's Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before conducting searches or seizures. However, the Arizona Supreme Court denied the appeal based on its merits, suggesting that they determined Robert's Fourth Amendment rights were upheld.
7. Robert's Good Behavior and Parole: After spending two years in prison, Robert was deemed to have exhibited good behavior and was granted parole. Parole is a form of early release from prison under specific conditions and supervision. The exact criteria for parole eligibility and the granting of parole vary by jurisdiction.
In summary, the events in the proper order are as follows: The cops came to Robert's home and arrested him, he was read his Miranda rights, taken to the magistrate, released on own recognizance, had a trial and was convicted, appealed his case with claims of Fourth Amendment violations, and finally, he exhibited good behavior and was granted parole.
The sources from which Robert's rights were derived include the Fifth Amendment (Miranda rights), the Sixth Amendment (rights to a fair trial), and the Fourth Amendment (protections against unreasonable searches and seizures). These rights are fundamental constitutional protections provided to individuals within the criminal justice system.