criminal justice case analysis 1 – writinghub.net
Write an analysis for each scenario below. See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing the assignment.
1. During class on Wednesday, while showing a movie, Professor saw smoke and smelled odor of marijuana from the back of the class. When she turned the lights on, she could not tell who had been smoking, and no one confessed to smoking it. She told the class that no one could leave until the perpetrator was identified. Professor locked the doors. Four hours went by, and when still nobody confessed, the students began to get anxious. Tyler grabbed Professor by the arms and shook her, shouting “I’m not staying in here any longer!” Joseph helped him kick down the door and the entire class followed them out. While leaving, Ron grabbed a piece of the door and threw it at Professor, who ducked out of the way. The piece of the door instead hit Diana, injuring her leg. Describe any and all torts you observe, and identify who can sue whom and why.
2. Remember our friend Ana? You may recall she attempted to rob the bank, but mistakenly grabbed the duffel bag of the person next to her and ran out of the bank. When she got back to Summer’s car, she opened the bag and discovered it held $100,000 and a gun. The tag on the bag read “If lost, return to Liz” along with an address and phone number. Ana’s great attorney managed to have the case dismissed, and she used some of the money from the bag to pay him, buy a brand new Jeep Wrangler, and pay her tuition. She then spent the rest partying with Jennifer, Felicia, and Katie. The group decided to go to Club Disco to hang out. Alexis, the bartender, got a great tip by serving them Long Island Iced Teas all night. She was even nice enough to help them to the car safely since they were stumbling and falling. Ana sped off and hit Kurt’s car, which he was driving on the wrong side of a two-way road with the headlights off. His car was totaled. Upon impact, Katie, who was not wearing her seatbelt, fell out the back of the Jeep and hurt herself. Describe any and all torts you observe, and identify who can sue whom, and why. Include any defenses you see.
3. Rich is an avid duck hunter. One day, he spotted a beauty flying over his neighbor Kim’s house. He aimed, fired, and shot the duck, which fell onto Kim’s roof. Matt hopped over the fence into Kim’s yard then climbed on her roof. While retrieving the duck, Matt slipped and fell off the roof, but luckily landed on the balcony outside of Kim’s window. Matt peeked in and saw Kim and Carolyn watching “Glee,” dancing around and lip syncing to the songs. He took some photos with his cell phone and uploaded them to YouTube the next day. Describe any and all torts you observe, and identify who can sue whom, and why.
Please read the instructions and look at the example below carefully. Thanks
CRM 123 – Case Analysis Instructions Purpose The goals of this assignment are to provide a valuable skill and to assess your ability to comprehend and apply case law. Reading, briefing, and applying what you are reading in your textbook and learning in the modules are effective ways to become literate in the process of the U.S. legal system. Conducting an Analysis Before making and defending a decision, you must be familiar with the relevant law. For our purposes, your textbook and course material provide all the legal concepts needed to apply the law to a factual situation. Each analysis should contain the following: 1. The main issue. Identify and write (in your own words, at least 50% original) the central issue to be decided. As much as possible, set the issue in legal terms and concepts. 2. Relevant legal concepts quoted from textbook court opinions. Search the assigned chapter for legal concepts that will help you decide and justify your decision. Once you find the quotations you wish to use, copy them into the appropriate places in your analysis. 3. Relevant case law quoted from the textbook. 4. Rationale. Write (in your own words, at least 50% original) a complete explanation about how you used the legal concepts you cited to make a decision about how the case should be resolved. 5. Ruling. Describe (in your own words, at least 50% original) what should happen to the parties involved as a result of your decision. Our textbook is “Introduction to Law and the Legal System and Criminal Procedure” by Frank Schubert which you can Google it
Sample Case Analysis in Essay Style
The main issue in this case is whether the State of Kentucky violated procedural due process by depriving inmates of a protected liberty right to prison visitors, without a hearing to challenge a visitor who is banned.
This is a due process case. Procedural Due Process is in the 14th Amendment – Section 1. “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (pp. 28 & 671). The relevant definitions here is the definition of liberty: “…a vast scope of personal rights. It also infers the absence of arbitrary and unreasonable government restraints. (p. 29)
“The due process guarantee protects people from unfairness in the operation of both substantive and procedural law.” Procedural law prescribes the method used to enforce legal rights. It provides the machinery by which individuals can enforce their rights or obtain redress for the invasion of such rights.” (p.29) Since procedural due process rights cost the government time and money: “Courts generally therefore generally try to balance accuracy against its cost on a case-by-case basis.
The Court examined this issue in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. John Doe, stating “In cases such as Washington v. Constantineau (1971) and Goss v. Lopez (1975) we held that due process required the government to afford the plaintiff a hearing to prove or disprove a particular set of facts.” However, “…a convicted offender has already had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest.” “Plaintiffs who assert a right to a hearing under the Due Process Clause must show that the facts they seek to establish in that hearing are relevant under the statutory scheme.” (p. 46)
Since the State of Kentucky had “…established regulations to guide prison officials in making visitation decisions,” one could argue that an inmate’s liberty to have visitors has been recognized. It could be further argued that denial of a hearing to challenge the finding that a specific visitor could be barred is protected by due process. However, conducting court hearings requiring an adversary proceeding could be unduly burdensome of the state and the liberty of an inmate has been deprived initially in a procedurally safeguarded hearing.
Deprivation of the liberty of convicted inmates to have specific visitors is outweighed by the burden of conducting such hearings. The court should rule in favor of the State of Kentucky.