LEARN MORE...

State V. Stu Dents

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Criminal Justice

School

University of Phoenix

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

puevfflq909

Pages

Showing Page:

1/6

Running head: STATE v. STU DENTS 1

State v. Stu Dents

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Date

Showing Page:

2/6

STATE v. STU DENTS 2

Formulate 2 distinct sentencing arguments.

In this criminal case, the jury found the defendant guilty on a number of charges. To

begin with, the defendant was guilty first degree murder of his partner, Uma Opee. Secondly, the

jury ruled that the defendant was also guilty of assaulting a police officer, Mr. T. Chur. Thirdly,

the court was also satisfied that the defendant committed crimes related to drug possession and

abuse. Further, the jury was also satisfied that the defendant had kidnapped the victim prior to

killing her. Finally, the defendant was in possession of a ring previously worn by the victim on a

daily basis (Deflem, 2018).

In fact, on the material day of her death, her coworkers reported that she had still worn

her ring before she left work at around 5:10 PM. Therefore, the jury resolved that the defendant

had illegally acquired the ring from the victim. This is known as burglary. Consequently, the

defendant was charged with a burglary crime. However, since the court would not substantiate

whether the defendant had acquired the ring by force, he was evicted this charge. Consequently,

the court was supposed to make a ruling based on the sentencing options available for the

number of crimes committed. Since the defendant has contracted our law firm to represent him, I

would submit the following to the court for considerations.

To begin with, the defendant was not competent to stand trial. This is because he abused

drugs and therefore he might have been suffering mentally at the time of murder. In other words,

I would argue that the defendant was mentally ill when he committed the crime. According to the

Comprehensive Crime Control Act signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, the defendant

must provide convincing evidence that at the time of committing the acts resulting in crime, they

were suffering from severe mental illnesses or defects and thus were unable to appreciate the

Showing Page:

3/6

End of Preview - Want to read all 6 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running head: STATE v. STU DENTS 1 State v. Stu Dents Student’s Name Instructor’s Name Institutional Affiliation Date STATE v. STU DENTS 2 Formulate 2 distinct sentencing arguments. In this criminal case, the jury found the defendant guilty on a number of charges. To begin with, the defendant was guilty first degree murder of his partner, Uma Opee. Secondly, the jury ruled that the defendant was also guilty of assaulting a police officer, Mr. T. Chur. Thirdly, the court was also satisfied that the defendant committed crimes related to drug possession and abuse. Further, the jury was also satisfied that the defendant had kidnapped the victim prior to killing her. Finally, the defendant was in possession of a ring previously worn by the victim on a daily basis (Deflem, 2018). In fact, on the material day of her death, her coworkers reported that she had still worn her ring before she left work at around 5:10 PM. Therefore, the jury resolved that the defendant had illegally acquired the ring from the victim. This is known as burglary. Consequently, the defendant was charged with a burglary crime. However, since the court would not substantiate whether the defendant had acquired the ring by force, he was evicted this charge. Consequently, the court was supposed to make a ruling based on the sentencing options available for the number of crimes committed. Since the defendant has contracted our law firm to represent him, I would submit the following to the court for consi ...
Purchase document to see full attachment

Tags: criminal justice plea bargaining Law and ethics Eighth Amendment State v Stu Dents