Case Study On Criminal Procedure

19 May No Comments

Case Study On Criminal Procedure

CJ 101 Unit 9 Assignment
Kaplan University

Brook and Hurst robbed the National Bank at a gunpoint after which they fled from the state of California. Brook went into hiding in Mexico while Hurst went into hiding in Arizona after which he was picked by Solana, one of his friend but who knew nothing about the suspected bank robbery. However, after a search, Hurst and his friend Solana were arrested and held in custody after which the both were deported back to California State to face legal charges against the bank robbery. Correct procedures need to be applied before charging and prosecution of the suspects(Bennett, 2015).

Firstly, the right procedure that prosecutors (police) of Orange County needed to do involved deporting Hurst from Arizona. At that point, they should issue a legitimate request to the haven state for return and send a specialist to get the suspect in the refuge state with a sensible period (30 days after arrest). The next step involves taking the suspect to the state to the return to be interrogated to reinforce investigation process and collect material evidence that can be used for prosecution purposes(Griffin, 2015). After interrogation and recording of the material evidence to support the case that the suspect is required to answer in the court of law, the suspect should be then taken to the court of law. The prosecutors take all the documented evidence in the court of law in which the suspect is charged in which he can plead guilty or not. Depending on the evidence tabled in the court of law, the judges can rule against or in favor of the suspect(Griffin, 2015). If the courts rule against the suspect, then the suspect is sentenced as per the existing legal doctrines. The circumstances, nature, as well as the severity of alleged accusations, are some of the most critical factors that determine extradition process. The fugitive’s criminal history and the level and materiality of the evidence to support the case are also critical factors that determine extradition(Bennett, 2015). California Extradition law under penal code contained in Section 50.34 of the constitution supports the extradition process.

The suspect (Brook) who had escaped to Mexico should also be deported back to the United States as per the treaty of Jan 25, 1980, between USA and Mexico. The prosecutors (security agents) need to provide an affidavit of the prosecution to the security agencies in Mexico to help in the arrest of the suspect. Different archives that should be given involves an affirmed duplicate of the prosecution, an ensured duplicate of capture warrant, documentation involving the important statutes, case operator sworn statement, and witnesses presentation (Griffin, 2015). Additionally, security officers need to attach a photo of the suspect, records of fingerprints, medical history documents, and statements of the witnesses. As per the penal code of Mexico, their countries security agents are required to arrest the suspect and deport him back to the USA to face the legal charges against him. The suspect is also needed to face additional legal charges for escaping to another country for the crimes committed (Bennett, 2015).

Solana, a friend of Hurst, was wrongfully arrested and he had nothing to do with the crime. He has legal rights to file habeas corpus as per law. After filing habeas corpus, he can argue the case and win. He did not engage in any crime. However, security officers do not know this(Bennett, 2015).  This document is written that requires the person under arrest be brought a court of law to guarantee releases of the person unless legal grounds are shown for the arrest of the person. The document is written to determine the status of the arrest of its legality and lawfulness (Griffin, 2015). The document can also be used for bailing out the person and also for the jurisdiction of the court.

References

Griffin, L. K. (2015). Barriers to Entry and Justice Ginsburg’s Criminal Procedure             Jurisprudence.

Bennett, M. W. (2015). The Grand Poobah and Gorillas in our Midst: Enhancing Civil Justice in   the Federal Courts—Swapping Discovery Procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil and            Criminal Procedure and Other Reforms Like Trial by Agreement. Nevada Law        Journal15(3), 10.




Click following link to download this document

Case Study On Criminal Procedure.docx