criminal

Summarize the court’s arguments for ruling against imminent danger.   In other words, Haynes did not fancy the prospect of administrative segregation, feared the consequences of appearing to be an informer, and decided that it was better to take matters into his own hands. What his claim of self-defense comes down to is the proposition […]

List the facts and circumstances relevant to deciding whether Charles Haynes was entitled to the defense of self-defense. Under the law of the jungle a good offense may be the best defense. But although prisons are nasty places, they are not jungles-and it is the law of the United States rather than Hobbes’ state of

State the courts definition of (imminent) danger. Charles E. Haynes (Defendant-Appellant) entered a conditional plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to assault. Haynes appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Nelson Flores-Pedroso was playing dominoes after lunch in the cafeteria of the federal prison in Oxford, Wisconsin,

Do you agree that Myah Batie was the original or primary aggressor? Batie [also] argues that the jury’s verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. In a manifest weight analysis, an appellate court reviews the entire record, weighs the evidence and all reasonable inferences, considers the credibility of witnesses Do you agree that

According to the court, what is the difference between a (primary physical aggressor) and an (initial aggressor)? Here, it cannot be said that allowing the testimony resulted in prejudice to the defendant. At trial, the state introduced numerous photographic exhibits detailing the extent of the husband’s injuries. Many of these exhibits detailed what appeared to

Summarize the courts arguments to support its decision. The first prong of the test asks, in essence, whether the defendant was the initial aggressor. While the primary physical aggressor inquiry is not necessarily the same as whether a person was the initial aggressor, the primary aggressor question can nonetheless undermine a claim of self-defense. This

List all the facts relevant to deciding whether Myah Batie was the initial aggressor. On March 11, 2014, a jury convicted Myah Evans Batie of domestic violence in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A) with a prior conviction specification. The charge arose out of a physical altercation between Batie and her husband, where the husband called 911

Ninham and the other four juveniles  Omer Ninham (Defendant) was convicted of firstdegree intentional homicide and was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Ninham filed a motion for relief from his life sentence, seeking to allow for the possibility of parole. The Circuit Court denied the motion. Ninham appealed. The Supreme Court

United States Supreme Court (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 [2005]), I conclude, as has the United States Supreme Court (Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 [2005]), that the differences between juveniles and adults mean that juvenile offenders “cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders.” The three general differences are: (1) juveniles have

who committed an intentional, brutal, senseless, grotesque, reprehensible murder of a 13-year-old innocent stranger. First, we hold that sentencing a 14-year-old to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for committing intentional homicide is not categorically unconstitutional. We arrive at our holding by applying the two-step approach employed by the United States Supreme Court, most