There are two problems in this scenario noted as Problems A and B. Both problems A and B must be answered.
Problem A has a special format which is found at the end of the problem; please use this format as indicated. Problem B requires you to answer several questions at the end of the problem. The answers to Problem B are to be put into formal writing – prose.
Dillenger and Barker go to the home of Abbot at 11:30 p.m. for the purpose of stealing Abbot’s prized coin collection valued at over $750,000. They drive to Abbot’s neighborhood and park the car about a block away. They next hop Abbot’s backyard fence and go to his bulkhead doors. They open the doors, go down the steps to the cellar door and remove a pane of door glass with glass cutters. Dillenger puts his hand through the glass and slides open the dead bold on the inside of the door. Unfortunately, Dillenger cut himself on the cut glass pain remaining in the door and began to bleed profusely. He removed his shoe and sock and wrapped the sock around his bleeding hand. He left his shoe in the bulkhead passageway.
Dillenger and Barker proceed through the basement and take the stairs to the first floor, and proceed through the kitchen area into the living room. In the living room they break into the curio cabinet where the prized coin collection is kept. Barker takes the collection box and he and Dillinger begin to depart through the kitchen. Abbot awoke from his sleep when he heard the curio cabinet being opened. He ran down the steps and confronted Dillenger and Barker. Barker had been in prison before and swore never to return. He wanted to leave no witness to the crime. Barker, therefore, drew his .357 magnum revolver and shot Abbot to death. The gunshot was heard by several neighbors and alerted Jones who was walking his dog in the neighborhood. His dog had a special affinity for a tree next to Abbot’s backyard fence. As Jones’s dog was taking care of business at his favorite tree, Jones saw Dillenger and Barker run from the bulkhead, cross the yard, hop the fence and run down the block. Jones went into Abbot’s home through the open bulkhead passageway, ran up the stairs and found Abbot, who, by that time, had assumed room temperature. Jones called the police and waited for their arrival.
When the police arrived, Jones gave a description of Dillenger and Barker. The police cordoned off the crime scene and the crime scene for the crime scene detective squad. The detectives arrived and performed the following tasks: a) took blood samples from drops around the living room, kitchen, basement and bulkhead area; b) took finger prints of all surface areas around the curio cabinet, bulkhead door, kitchen and living room furniture; c) located the spent .357 magnum round that passed through Abbot and lodged in a solid oak desk; d) took a sworn statement from Jones about what he observed; e) took a sworn statement from Jack and Jill, the next door neighbors, who heard the gunshot while they were watching “Nightline” with Ted Kopple; f) made a schematic drawing of the crime scene; g) seized a shoe in the cellar passageway and e) seized a bloody sock near the fence where Dillenger and Barker jumped the fence to escape. The squad also put out an APB for Dillenger and Barker.
As is the misfortune of many criminals, Dillenger and Barker did not pay attention to the local speed limits. A deputy sheriff stopped them for speeding and asked for identification. Neither Barker nor Dillinger had any. He asked them their names, but they gave him false alias names. The deputy then called the station house and was apprised of the APB. Noting that the men he stopped fit the description, the deputy called for back up. When the backup arrived, the deputy and two other sheriff’s department men placed Dillinger and Barker under arrest and immediately searched the car. They found (a) the stolen coin collection set in the trunk; (b) a .357 magnum revolver under the driver’s seat; and (c) noticed that Dillinger’s hand was bleeding.
At the station house, Barker and Dillenger were given their Miranda rights and counsel rights. Dillinger invoked his rights and remained silent. Barker sang like a bird and told all. He later reduced his oral statement to the police to a written, sworn statement.
a. List each piece of evidence referenced in the Fact Scenario separately, including, but not limited to statements and other evidence observed, or otherwise gathered by law enforcement officers (police officers, detectives, and deputies), at the crime scene at and around the home, at the vehicle stop, and during the interrogation at the station, that you believe would be relevant to the charges at their trials.
b. Briefly state why the evidence is relevant.
c. State the form of the evidence (oral, documentary, physical/real, demonstrative).
d. State whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.
This four-part analysis format is required for each individual item of evidence.
Sample Answer A
*Sample Answer (note that the sample is for illustration only and is not part of the assignment. The sample involves a scenario where Boozer is charged with aggravated assault with a dangerous weapon because he shot Grayson with a handgun):
a. Robert’s testimony at trial that he saw Boozer shoot Grayson
b. Relevant eye witness testimony to show that Boozer killed Grayson
(This is a separate fact scenario and unrelated to Part A)
In a prosecution for murder, the prosecution and the defense, with the express consent of the accused, stipulate in writing that the firearm offered into evidence in court was the same firearm taken by law enforcement at the scene of the murder. The judge accepts the stipulation of fact and admits the firearm into evidence. The judge tells the prosecution and the defense that they are bound by the stipulation of fact and cannot introduce any evidence contrary to this fact during the trial, unless the court approves the change.
In his instructions to the jury, before the jury deliberated, the judge told the jury that the stipulation of fact that the firearm admitted into evidence was the same firearm that was seized by law enforcement at the scene of the alleged murder must be accepted as a true fact by the jury and they may not disregard this evidence.
Answer the following questions using complete paragraphs:
1. Was the instruction the judge gave to the prosecution and defense appropriate under the law? Please explain your answer
2. Was the instruction the judge gave to the jury appropriate under the law? Please explain your answer.
During the same prosecution referred to in question 1, the prosecution and the defense stipulate in writing that if the alleged accomplice of the accused were present and sworn in court, the accomplice would testify that he, and not the accused, pulled the trigger on the firearm during the shooting. The judge accepts the stipulation. The judge instructs the jury that the jury must accept the stipulated testimony as being true and must accept therefore the facts asserted in the stipulation of testimony.
3. Was the judge’s instruction to the jury correct as a matter of law? explain your answer.
Business and Attitudes toward People on Welfare Welfare is one of the United States most conspicuous political issues. Since the U.S welfare framework was built up in 1935, its monetary structure, the wellspring of its financing and the capabilities of its beneficiaries have been constant themes of verbal confrontation. As a result of America's exceptionally assorted populace, a plenty of states of mind have created with respect to the way that individuals see welfare beneficiaries, and this might be ascribed to a wide range of components. I willingly volunteered look all the more particularly at the connection between people who work (or don't work) and individuals who are on welfare. The inquiry that I chose to investigate was, "completes a person's business status impact their demeanor towards individuals who are on welfare?" I trust this is a critical inquiry to deliver on the grounds that individuals have a tendency to sum up that people who work have brutally antagonistic dispositions toward individuals accepting welfare checks since they don't need to work for the cash. On the off chance that this is in truth obvious, at that point I trust it would assume an immense part in the results of numerous decisions and in addition how states compose their welfare frameworks. My theory is Ha: in an examination of people, the individuals who are right now working will have more contrary sentiments towards individuals who are on welfare than people who are not working. My invalid theory would be H0: there is no connection between a person's business status and their sentiments toward individuals who are on welfare. I trust my theory to be genuine on the grounds that I figure it would be elusive a man who works and strives to get a salary and is likewise tolerant of different people who are getting cash without working. A few people may feel that their work and endeavors are put down on the grounds that people who don't advance a similar exertion can in any case guarantee a "wage". There may likewise be people who had encountered budgetary hardship (in the same way as other of the general population who use welfare) yet worked their way again into money related solidness without the guide of welfare. These individuals may have a more pessimistic "on the off chance that I could do it, at that point they ought to have the capacity to do it" state of mind towards individuals on welfare. I think this speculation is relevant to people in a wide range of occupations yet significantly more so to people in the physical work constrain. Individuals who work bring down paying difficult work employments could have amazingly contrary perspectives towards individuals who are welfare since they are physically striving while welfare beneficiaries might not need to do as such themselves. On the opposite end of my speculation, people who are not utilized could have more constructive sentiments toward individuals on welfare for a few reasons. The most prominent reason is that there is likely a higher possibility that people who are not utilized may in truth be accepting welfare help themselves. I don't trust that people who are as of now on welfare will have contrary emotions towards the very program that they are utilizing. Another factor could be people who are not really "out of the activity" but rather are essentially not currently hoping to work. For instance, housewives, non-working understudies and youthful grown-ups might not have an indistinguishable contrary sentiments from somebody who is utilized on the grounds that they don't have an occupation or pay to contrast and those of individuals who are on welfare. These gatherings of individuals might not have the same "put down" feeling that utilized individuals may have and they may have more unbiased or constructive emotions towards individuals who are on welfare. The informational collection that I utilized for my examination is nes2008. This dataset is from an American National Election Time Series Study which occurred in 2008. 4,424 aggregate people were met on an up close and personal premise, 2,322 people previously the presidential decision and 2,102 people after the presidential race. As can be accepted by the eye to eye surveying the unit of examination for this investigation was people. (ANES) The uprightness of this informational collection is solid in how the people were surveyed on a wide assortment of subjects, for example, their voting cooperation, values, recognition with the media and their belief systems. This protects the people don't feel as if they are being met for a particular theme or to answer a particular inquiry which could influenced their answers a less precise way. The expansive number of individuals who were examined is likewise a positive part of the informational collection. In spite of the fact that four thousand individuals may not superbly speak to the assessments of the whole populace of the U.S, the example measure is sufficiently substantial to produce no less than an adequate portrayal. (ANES) Then again, the nes2008 informational index has a couple of negative attributes. The talking of people pre-and-post-decision may have created comes about that conflictingly speak to the U.S populace on account of the impact that the race may have had on a few people's perspectives or answers. Despite the fact that the two floods of interviewees comprised of various individuals, the decision may have affected people to react all the more emphatically or adversely to specific inquiries in view of the result of the race. The populace could have been spoken to far contrastingly before the decision than after the race. This might be an impact that the investigation was attempting to actuate, however for my examination it doesn't create the best portrayal of the populace. Another issue with the nes2008 informational index is that there was a planned oversampling of African-American and Latino respondents. This oversampling presents another issue with respect to the investigations portrayal of the all inclusive community as it may exclude the same number of answers from different races that could influence my testing results. Fortunately, the informational index incorporated a recipe that would measure the information in a way that would better speak to the populace. (ANES) The needy variable that I chose was welfare_therm. This is a constant variable that requests people to rate the glow of their emotions toward individuals who are on welfare from 0º (coldest) to 100º (hottest). It is suggested that hotter emotions are more positive than colder sentiments. This was a decent factor for me to utilize in light of the fact that the inquiry that I am attempting to answer relates to person's sentiments toward individuals who are on welfare. I think rating their emotions in degrees as opposed to classes like "contrary", "marginally antagonistic", "impartial" et cetera takes into account people to be more particular while depicting their sentiments towards individuals on welfare. Despite the fact that, I do trust that the extensive variety of the thermometer may achieve a less complete depiction of what is viewed as a somewhat constructive or somewhat pessimistic feeling toward individuals who are on welfare. A diagram portraying welfare_therm can be found in figure 1. My principle autonomous variable was employ_status, which had people distinguish themselves inside business status classes. These classes were: working presently, briefly laid off, jobless, resigned, for all time crippled, homemaker, and understudy. At in the first place, this variable did not present the most legitimate estimation of work status that I would requirement for my exploration. To produce a superior portrayal of the sentiments created by people who were working or not working, I needed to refine the quantity of classifications in the variable. I recoded the variable with the goal that a person's reaction would either enroll as A. working or B. not working. This new factor was called working and would fill in as a superior variable for estimating an association with my reliant variable, sentiments toward individuals on welfare. A diagram portraying working can be found in figure 2. The first of my control factors was sex. This variable arranged individual respondents as either male or female. It is vital to take note of that as a result of how this variable was coded in Stata (1=male, 2=female), I expected to recode it with the goal that it would be all the more effectively estimated by my tests. I recoded the variable as 0=male and 1=female and I named the new factor female. I incorporated this control variable since I trusted that a person's sexual orientation would largy affect the emotions that they had towards individuals who are on welfare. Characteristically ladies are thought to be more enthusiastic and thoughtful towards people who might be in need and I felt this may affect their state of mind towards a man who is on welfare. The second control variable that I incorporated into my test was hh_kids, which is an all out measure of the quantity of children in the respondent's family. 0=no children 1=one child and at least 2=two children in the family unit. I trust that this variable would have served my examination better if the classifications spoke to the dynamic of families with few children and family units with numerous children better. Maybe classes, for example, 0 kids, 1-3 children and at least 3 children would have been exceptional in light of the fact that I don't surmise that 2 kids speaks to a family unit with "many" children, which was the dynamic I was planning to gauge. I do trust that this variable is adequate, however. I trust that the quantity of children that an individual has in their family unit impacts their sentiments toward individuals on welfare since people with numerous youngsters may recognize what it resembles to be on a tight spending plan or to need to accommodate kids. Individuals with numerous children in their home could be thoughtful towards individuals on welfare since they may be under the feeling that the general population who are on welfare require it to help their kids. Income_r was my third control variable. This variable reports the wage of the respondent inside twenty five classes that range from "none or under $2,999" to "$150,000 and over". Tragically, the classifications are not similarly measured. For instance, there is a class named "$15,000-16,999" and its ensuing categor>GET ANSWER