Criminal Procedure Process Analysis And Application Law Essay

Mr. Crook has come to a jurisprudence office and retained me as his lawyer to stand for him in a condemnable affair. Mr. Crook has advised me that he has committed a robbery and that the constabulary are seeking to turn up him as a individual of involvement. The first thing I have advised him to make is turn himself over to jurisprudence enforcement if he in fact did perpetrate the robbery. The following thing I will make is to run into with him and reexamine the facts of the affair in readying for a defence. Even with him turning himself in, he would still hold the right to a test and to be found guilty by a jury of his equals.

I told Mr. Crook that there will be several things to discourse and measure like the grounds constabulary obtained and how the constabulary obtained it. Mr. Crook explained that the constabulary arrived to his place where his 13 twelvemonth old nephew answered the door. He indicated that the constabulary pushed past his nephew, which has me oppugning two things. One did the constabulary have a valid hunt warrant, and second did his 13 twelvemonth old nephew have the authorization to accept to seek. I explained to Mr. Crook that to seek his house, constabulary must hold a hunt warrant, which articulates what grounds they hope to happen, what likely cause they have to believe that it will be found. Without a proper warrant, anything that was obtained in the hunt would non be able to be presented to a tribunal as grounds. As for Mr. Crooks nephew holding the authorization to let constabularies to come in the house with or without a warrant would follow the regulation of pollex that if the regulations of the house are for the 13 twelvemonth old non to hold anyone in the place without the permission of his uncle, it would impart to the fact that he did non hold determination doing authorization to allow anyone inside the place for the hunt.

I explained to him that turning himself in would perchance work in his favour as it demonstrated a compunction for the offense he allegedly committed. This action would besides assist Mr. Crook avoid possible extra charges for bolting. I explained to Mr. Crook that when we went to the governments to turn himself in he should be cognizant of a few of his rights, and advised him that before the constabulary could oppugn him that the constabulary should read him his Miranda rights and explain those rights to him. I advised Mr. Crook what those rights would be by explicating that he did hold the right to stay soundless, that if he refused to make so that anything he said could be used against him in a tribunal of jurisprudence. I advised him that he had a right to hold me present as his lawyer, and that he should non reply any inquiries associating to his alleged offense without my presence ( Roberson, C. , Stuckey, G. , & A ; Wallace, H. , 2006 ) . I briefly explained that he would be booked into the gaol, exposure taken, finger prints taken and general inquiries asked with respect to personal stats, household contacts, etc. and that it would be all right to react to those inquiries.

I next explained to him that he may be eligible to post bond while the affair was before the tribunal. I explained that while many gaols had a agenda to find bond at the gaol, that bail in this instance, due to the fact that it was a felony he admitted perpetrating would most probably be set at his initial visual aspect before the justice or magistrate. Mr. Crook was told that during the initial visual aspect that the prosecution would read into the record a ailment, mentioning the offense which he is alleged to hold committed and the facts back uping the allegations. This ailment would name the specific offense for which he was traveling to be charged based on the grounds the constabulary had at that clip. I told Mr. Crook that I would be registering a demurral ailment with regard to the hunt conducted at Mr. Crooks house and that even if the constabulary had a valid hunt warrant that a 13 twelvemonth old male child was barely old plenty to do a determination and lacked the authorization to give permission for the hunt to let the hunt of the abode ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006 ) .

Mr. Crook was told that the sum of bond would be set at this hearing every bit good. It was explained to Mr. Crook that the sum of bond was to be determined by a figure of factors. His condemnable history, flight hazard, citizenship, offense alleged to hold committed. I told him that since he was being charged with armed robbery a category a felony and was a first clip wrongdoer, that he may hold stood a even opportunity of being given a sensible bond. I told him the bond could non be set so high that it was non come-at-able, but that it would be set high plenty to guarantee that he showed up to tribunal. This right to non hold inordinate bond levied against him is protected by the 8th amendmentaa‚¬a„?s protection against inordinate bond ( FindLaw: U.S. Fundamental law: Eight Amendment. , n.d. ) . The fact he turned himself in may play in his favour and show that he was willing to accept duty for what he was allegedly being charged with and demonstrates that he is surely non a flight hazard. This being a first discourtesy for him would besides be taken into history, as he did non hold a old felon record.

Mr. Crook advised that at his following visual aspect would be for a preliminary hearing. At this hearing the prosecution would show the grounds they feel warrants prosecuting the charge of armed robbery. They will show the grounds obtained during the probe of the offense and the hunt of his house. I told Mr. Crook that I would at that clip do a gesture to the justice objecting to the grounds inquiring that it the grounds found during the hunt be suppressed, since it was unlawfully obtained. I told Mr. Crook that if the magistrate did non hold that the affair would be bound over for test and that if he did hold with my gesture they could make up one’s mind non to prosecute and he would be released.

I advised Mr. Crook that after the preliminary hearing he would be arraigned. At his arraignment his rights would be explained to him, that he had a right to a rapid test, and to hold a test by a jury of his equals or by a justice ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006 ) . I told Mr. Crook that one time his rights had been explained to him that he would so come in a supplication. I told Mr. Crook that he should come in a non guilty supplication, and allow the province prove its instance against him. I besides explained that there were a figure of other supplications he could come in. A guilty supplication which if accepted by the justice, would convey the affair to the condemning stage thereby salvaging all parties involved a batch of clip and energy. He could plead non guilty, and the affair would travel to test, the prosecution would hold to do its instance and convert a jury of his equals to happen him guilty. I explained that between the two options pleading guilty may derive him lenience and perchance a sentence at the lower terminal of the sentencing scope, while on the other manus that if he was found guilty after the non guilty supplication, he could stop up with a significantly higher sentence ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006 ) . I besides wanted Mr. Crook to understand that there were other supplications he could come in, non guilty by ground of insanity. I explained to Mr. Crook in this case he would be efficaciously saying that he was non guilty of perpetrating the offense due to his saneness at the clip of the offense and that if he was found sane, he would be considered guilty as the lone ground for non being guilty would hold been if he would hold been found insane ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006 ) . The other supplication options were non applicable in his instance as he had non been antecedently charges nor had non been in danger of being convicted. Those supplications were a supplication of one time in hazard and supplication of former judgement of strong belief of acquittal.

Mr. Crook was so advised that we would so hold a figure of issues to turn to during the pre test phase in this procedure. Matters such as the locale, day of the month of the test, whether he wanted a jury test and to stand for himself or go on with me as his lawyer ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006, p. 165 ) . I told Mr. Crook that should he take a jury test that there would be a jury choice procedure, were a jury of his equals would be selected and impaneled to hear the instance against him. I told Mr. Crook that a procedure called jury choice would take topographic point. That each side would be able to disregard prospective jury members for cause or who may hold preconceived sentiments of his guilt. This procedure would go on until both the prosecution and defence could hold ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006 ) .

The following issues to be addressed would be over the class of a few Sessionss referred to as pre test hearings. These hearings would turn to such affairs as find of grounds, gestures to stamp down grounds, to disregard, for continuations, to find competence, supplication dialogues. I told Mr. Crook that I would be doing gestures for the province to unwrap their grounds so that I could do the necessary readyings for statements to be made in either explicating or oppugning the cogency of that grounds. Based on the grounds and its beginning I would be doing gestures to disregard the grounds or the charges be dropped based on a deficiency of grounds should the grounds from the hunt be deemed inadmissible by the justice. Depending on the strength of the grounds that the prosecution may hold on the other manus, I might besides see a supplication understanding, where the prosecution may hold to a lesser related charge in exchange for an admittance to the offense, account of extenuating fortunes, understandings to certain judicial admissions, interventions, or community service to fulfill the tribunal ( Roberson, C. et al. , 2006 ) .

I next explained that one time the jury had been selected they would be charged with happening him guilty or non guilty based on the presented grounds and testimony and to do their finding based on sensible uncertainty. I told Mr. Crook that I felt a cardinal portion of Mr. Crookaa‚¬a„?s non being found guilty rested on the skip of the grounds that may hold been unlawfully obtained in the hunt of his house. This fact may be the one piece that gives uncertainty as to whether he committed the offense.

I explained to Mr. Crook that robbery in the first grade was a category A felony in Washington State ( RCW 9A.56.200. Robbery in the first grade, 2010 ) . Mr. Crook was told that because a piece was involved that there may an sweetening to the offense that would supply for more clip to be added to the sentence normally this was a five twelvemonth sentence entirely on top of any sentence received for robbery in the first grade. In Washington State the sentence scopes are legislatively set. Harmonizing to Timothy John Leary ( 2009 ) and lawyer in Washington province, the scope for robbery in the first grade can be between 41 to 54 months in prison. If the felon record was maxed out that the sentence could be extended to a scope of 129 to 171 months. I told Mr. Crook that since he was a first clip wrongdoer that he would likely be on the lower terminal of the sentence scope if found guilty of robbery in the first grade.

Given that he turned himself in and finally was willing to accept ownership for his portion in the offense he committed, showed that he had a sense of compunction for the offense that was committed, the justice may take this as a mitigating factor when it comes clip to articulate sentence. I felt that in this instance it would be prudent to see what the prosecution had for grounds less, the grounds found during the hunt of the house, and that at that clip it may be in our involvement to negociate a supplication trade. Since he was a first clip wrongdoer, had come frontward, had mitigating factors with regard to his motive, that the justice may hold lenience and accept a supplication trade that may affect functioning some clip as opposed to a batch of clip in prison.