Opening Statement
Manslaughter: “the taking of human life without premeditation” or while having no intent to kill another person, you did kill them and should be charged thuswise. The family of the person you killed as one less member because of you. And they would agree with me that if someone killed somebody, they should be charged for their actions. It may not have been on purpose, but beyond a reasonable doubt, Dannie DeLuca did kill Vivian Villanueva. When Dannie DeLuca crashed into Vivian Villanueva, he was committing manslaughter. There is no other way to put it. It doesn’t matter what you hear from the defence today, and you will hear a great many things. All that matters is that the defendant in this trial killed someone, and it
…show more content…
They will say that Dannie is innocent. They will try to convince you that Dannie didn’t mean to crash or that Vivian Villanueva is to blame for the horrific events that occured on May 12. But I am here to tell you that their evidence is false. Just know that even though the road might have been dangerous, Dannie DeLuca killed an innocent woman, a woman who had done nothing wrong. They will try, try persuade you to believe that nothing is wrong. Nothing is wrong except for the fact that everyone got injured that night. Concussions and death are of course very serious, but there are more important consequences that occurred that night. Concussions won’t stay with you long and everyone gets over death eventually. Eventually people stop mourning lost loved ones, friends, and even enemies. Death is hard to overcome, but lost friendships are just as hard. Payton Piper, Aziz Atwood, and Dannie DeLuca, all present in the car on May 12, were friends for four years. They had classes together, the same interests, and contributed to the soccer team and the choir group at their school. Basically, they were inseparable. But one event changed all of this. They could have been friends till they grew old, could have been there at each others deathbeds,
The majority in this Court are of the opinion that, other considerations aside, there would be no point in allowing the appeal and ordering a new trial of the appellant because his guilt would be sufficiently established at the further trial by evidence of his admissions at the trial at which he was
This is an analysis of the newspaper article on the appeal of the murder conviction of Mr. Gordon Wood. Mr. Wood was originally charged with the 1995 murder of Ms. Caroline Byrne and the trial was held in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in July 2006. During the court case it was stated that Mr. Wood had “hurled his model girlfriend off The Gap in Sydney in a spear throw that lobbed her so severely into a crevice, that a rescue team had to use force to free her body” (Sydney Morning Herald, 2007). Mr. Wood pleaded not guilty to all charges, however the jury found him guilty of her murder. The murder case was taken to State level due to the seriousness of the crime.
In the end, the defense has succeeded in their goal of saving their defendants life by getting him charged with life without
This story comes to us from the little town of Olathe Kansas via the Los Angeles Times. However, this story was also on the front-page of The New York Times. Our author, David Eulitt, leads with the defendant telling jurors he didn 't care what sentence was handed down. The author continues, Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe had urged the jury to recommend a death sentence. The jury convicted 74-year-old Frazier Glenn Miller Jr. of capital murder for the April 2014 shootings, Eulitt notes.
Michael Nealy received a serious sentence of the 30 years for the murder of Mr. Jakari Butler. There was hardly any physical evidence presented at his trial. Instead, there was two eye-witnesses that testified to seeing Mr. Nealy being in an altercation with Mr. Butler and him leaving the scene of the altercation. What they did not see was Mr. Nealy or anyone for that matter stab Mr. Butler. They only heard him exclaim that he was stabbed.
Now, after the case it is made sure that an accused person has a fair trial, the case established a right of proper information in criminal proceedings, which is essential to the fair trial of an accused person. The ruling has given better communication between the prosecution and defence and has given defence counsel the tools they need to represent their clients in a fair
Sharon M. Draper, in the book Tears of a Tiger, writes about four teenage boys from Hazelwood High School and how the tragedy of one of the boy’s death ends another… After a big basketball game the boys go out and share a cold pack of beer with each other; only one of them didn’t drink, they were being reckless boys, And because the driver was drinking and driving they had a serious accident; crashing into a wall the car caught on fire, and one of the boy’s (Rob) died that night because he became stuck in the car, Andy, Rob’s best friend tried to help him out of the car but B.J didn’t let him, he saw that the car was going to catch on fire. (9).
The panel of judges did not find enough necessity for the killing, and they were worried that giving an exception for this case might set a controversial precedent for the future. The issue remained unresolved, but Dudley and Stephens received sympathy from many people and in response, the queen Victoria used “Royal Prerogative of Mercy” to change the men’s sentence to time served in prison, which by that time was six months. I would have the same final decision as the
The public has reacted with incredulity that the court’s definition of behaviour showing “innocence of murder” could include the extended deception and dishonest conduct of this man, who has continued, day after day, month after month, year after year to conceal the truth about his wife’s death (Couriermail 2016). The success of Baden-Clay’s appeal in turn, influences others in similar situations of spouse homicide and not only allows but encourages this deceptive behaviour. This would surely be detrimental to all of Queensland society and create an unsafe culture by opening this type of opportunity for future homicides and killings if all it takes to win a spouse homicide case was to dispose of the body so that there is no recognisable signs of trauma and enough evidence to be convicted of
It didn't stop them from showing them that can be alike. Both of their deaths left a mark on the people closest to them. One of the boys family just wanted to see their son succeed, while the other boy family didn't care when they would see him again. Everyone needs support from the people closest to them in their life.
His tear stained cheeks and his red puffy eyes just screamed grief. I didn't realize I was crying too until I felt a hot tear slide down my cheek. I pulled my friend into a embrace, he returned it, clutching onto me like a koala to it's mother. After a few calm breaths, he pulled out of the hug. He wiped his eyes on his jacket sleeve, and smiled a bit, “Thanks for always being there for me…”, Soda set the flowers down on his older and younger brothers graves, we stood up and walked out.
It was a dreary Friday afternoon when they all gathered around the grave in a small circle. Looking to one another for support as they watched the black casket of their former president, their brother, their friend being lowered to the ground with heavy hearts unsure of how to say goodbye. Because the goodbye was too soon.
Secondly, several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case cast doubt on the defendant's guilt. For example, one of the witnesses claims to have heard the defendant shout "I'm going to kill you!" before the murder took place. However, another witness claims to have heard the father shout "I'm going to kill you!"
However, the main affect this decision has on today’s society is the way justice must be carried out in the court of law and the way a person’s rights should be protected even if they’re guilty or
The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.