Aspects of Criminal Procedure Report
LAW 604 - Criminal Procedure
Arizona State University
In the first question, Defendant is charged with robbing a convenience store. The defendant
owns a blue Honda Accord. During the trial, the government offers to play a record of the
anonymous cell phone call to 911, on which the declarant says, “Hey, a guy just ran out of
the 7-11 waving a gun. He jumped into a blue Honda Accord.” In my opinion, the evidence
that is presented by the government is admissible in court because it shows the grounds on
which the defendant was charged for having robbed the particular convenience store.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
Admissibility of evidence is usually made based on the relevance and reliability of evidence.
The information that the defendant got into a blue vehicle would however not be sufficient to
secure a conviction against the defendant, because he possibly cannot be the only man that
owns a blue vehicle. The government would have to provide more evidence to show that the
defendant is guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Federal rule of evidence
dictates that evidence provided in court should sufficiently show the reason why the evidence
is being presented. In this particular case, the government is also expected to show that the
evidence that was presented against the defendant was obtained legally. Although everyone
knows that the police are part of the government, it is a common-law practice to ensure that
grounds on which evidence is obtained and presented to the court are made clear. The
government is also expected to present convincing evidence of the defendant’s presence at
the scene of the crime on the said date. At the same time, the defendant should not have any
alibi proving that he/she could not be involved in the crime scene. This would provide a solid
ground for the assertion that the defendant was the person who committed the crime of
stealing from the convenience store. The defendant’s lawyer would serve his client better by
trying to show that his or her client is not the only person who drives the blue model of the
vehicle that the person declaring describes and which the defendant owns. The prosecutor
will in turn present evidence to show that there is no doubt that the defendant was present at
the convenience store. This presentation can be in the form of a videotape with the recording
of a crime scene where the presence of a defendant is seen. The police officers investigating
the case should also ensure that they presented the gun that was used in the robbery and
proved beyond reasonable doubt that it belonged to the defendant.
In the second question, the evidence presented by the mother is admissible because the
government cannot show that the daughter is not present due to forfeiture. The federal rules
of evidence dictate that hearsay is a statement that is attempted to be presented as evidence
whilst the statement is being made by another person who is not the person declaring it.
However, hearsay has two exceptions. The definition of hearsay exempt occurs under two
circumstances, when the statement being made is extrajudicial, which means that the
statement is not made by the particular witness who made the statement in the court
proceedings. The exemption can also be provided when the statement must be made in the
court proceedings to prove something in court. In this case, for the boyfriend of the lady to be
prosecuted for having beaten up the lady, the mother of that lady should testify that her
daughter told her that she was beaten up by her boyfriend. According to the Federal Rules of
Evidence, the mother’s statement can be termed as an excited utterance which is a hearsay
exception. The grounds that are usually used in the excited utterance and hearsay exception is
that the statements that are made are usually done when the individuals are in a state of stress
or shock and therefore, the possibility that an individual could be lying is minimal. An
excited utterance must be made at a time when an individual has not had time to pre-meditate
on the occurrence of the event. In this case, the victim is in a state of shock because of having
been beaten by her boyfriend. In a relationship, the parties that are involved have a sense of
love and comfort being aware that they are safe with each other. The victim was in a state of
shock when she called her mother and told her that she had been beaten by her boyfriend. The
closest person that she could have called was her mother, and she confided her that her
boyfriend, who she must have thought loved and cared for her, had harmed her instead.
In the third question, the prosecution may not bring in a new indictment for theft of the same
money that was stolen during the robbery. Schinault has already been convicted of robbery.
The US constitution dictates that an individual cannot be convicted of the same crime twice.
Conviction of a person for the same crime for more than one time would be a violation of the
5th Amendment. This is known as the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The
double Jeopardy Clause protects individuals from being convicted twice on the same criminal
charges. The clause also serves to protect individuals from being punished twice for the same
crime that they have been charged with.
It would not matter if the government argued that the results were gross miscarriages of
justice satisfying the manifest necessity standard. Gross miscarriages of justice would not be
a sufficient basis for a mistrial without the presentation of sufficient evidence to raise doubt
in the conviction of Schinault on robbery charges. A judge on the case might decide to
declare a manifest of necessity standard, for example, based on the conduct of a member of
the jury that provides a final decision on the case. This would be considered to be sufficient
grounds for a mistrial.
In the fourth issue, the federal prosecution presented several counts of drug trafficking.
Before the trial, the defense had moved successfully in suppressing some of the narcotics that
were seized. During the government’s case, the main witness, a co-conspirator, turned out to
be a federal witness, refuses to testify, and takes a contempt sanction. The prosecutor calls a
DEA agent, sets the scene, and then wonders what would be the next step. In my opinion, the
defendant can be retried. The DEA agent while giving evidence, makes a revelation of
information that was not known to the jury. The defendant’s lawyer might have had the
opportunity to have the evidence that might have been used to incriminate his or her client
because it is quite possible that the evidence was obtained in violation of the constitutional
rights of the defendant. Although evidence of the drugs would have resulted in the successful
conviction of the defendant, that evidence could not be used in court. Since the witness
whose statement could lead to the conviction of the defendant refused to testify against him
(the defendant), there was not a lot that the government prosecution could go on to present in
the court. Though a mistrial was granted on the case, the government prosecution would have
a difficult time proving that the defendant was guilty. There are cases whereby the defendant
cannot be tried because there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant even though it
is well known by all that are involved that the defendant is guilty. The main witness did not
seem to mind that he was being sanctioned for contempt. By refusing to give evidence against
the defendant, the prosecution could not force him to testify in court even though he had
already agreed that he would testify. Therefore, the evidence that the DEA agent gives in
court is only verbal because there is no physical evidence to support his claims and make the
case against the defendant firm. To avoid a case where there might be suppression of
evidence presented in court, the police officers or any other representative of authority
involved in a criminal case should always ensure that they have a criminal arrest warrant or
that they follow due process before presenting evidence to avoid a case whereby the
defendant might file for dismissal of any physical evidence that would be useful in the court
case on the violation of constitutional rights or failure to follow due process.
