Cases Overview: The Issue of Justice

Article 21 of the constitution holds that an individual shall be not deprived of his life or personal liberty. Thus, the law upholds that every person deserves the right to appeal so that justice ensure that there are fairness and transparency in upholding natural justice and the right to life and liberty may be preserved. This right may be used by anybody, the accused, or acquitted as well as the one alleging the crime. To appeal means to apply to a higher court for a reversal of the decision of a lower court (Greenland, 1969). Sections 372 and 405 deals with appeals, on the other hand, criminal justice systems are involved directly in the apprehension, prosecution, punishing and sentencing those who are suspected or convicted of any criminal offense (Warnken, 2009).

United States of America V. Conrad Dominic Poole

In United States v. Olano, 507 U.S 725, 731-37 (1993), an appellant court can rescind a decision under CVRA review if an error occurred, was plain and had substantial effects of the defendant rights of the fair trial. At the trial Court, Poole did not contest the admission. CVRA does not limit the information to be used as a basis of the trial. Poole further fails to demonstrate to the appellate court how the purported error rendered unfair his judgment. Although an error may have occurred by admitting the statements, judgment was affirmed because Poole fails to indicate the violation of his federal rights.

The judgment provides an opportunity for judges to deny Defendants Avenue to discard evidence that could be important in making fair judgments that exhibit justice.

REGINALD MEEKS v. DAVID MCKUNE, et al

Mr. Meek claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel which adversely affected his defense. The finding of the court that Mr. Meek was accorded an effective counsel assistance is consistent and is a strong basis to deny COA. Mr. Meek claims that his counsel failed to adequately prepare his sister as an alibi witness and also failed to present Mr. Hawkins as an alibi altogether. A court could only provide COA under such applications if the test of "objective standard of reasonableness" is not met as stipulated in Strickland v. Washington. 466 U.S 668, 688 (1948). From the case, the counsel testimony indicates that Mr. Meek sister could not recall the proceeding of the exact date she accompanied him at Club Uptown. Mr. Hawkins further states that he was at home on the material date, rendering his testimony unhelpful. The counsel conduct indicates that he reasonably executed his duties (Warnken, 2009). From the judgment, it is reasonably expected that professionals may error because they are human. However, in case of a material error, resulting from professional incompetence, and which has the substantial effect on the outcome of the case, one can appeal to get a fair trial.

Introduction

After every ruling in a court, a defendant has a right to appeal any criminal conviction case. An appeal is not as a necessary integral part of every conviction, but it is the decision of the defendant. There are reasons why an individual may decide to take an appeal according to the criminal justice system. These reasons are to protect themselves from a prejudicial legal error which might have occurred during the proceedings which led to a conviction against verdicts led by unsupported enough evidence. Secondly to be able to foster and have a uniform, standards which are consistent and practices in the criminal process. Lastly, is to develop an authoritatively and refine the essential and practical doctrines within criminal law. Despite the fact, every defendant can appeal there are limitations on the appeal, final judgments and appeal of interlocutory. These are some of the reasons why an appeal can be limited if the final judgment has not been made in a trial court. A defendant is only allowed to appeal from an order, not in their motion. Also, a defendant is only allowed to appeal from an order which is revoking probation matters in the revocation decision.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the issue of justice in the two cases and provide an opinion on the rulings which were made in each case. In Dominic Poole case he did not deserve a reduction in his sentence. This is because he is a violent man, Poole tried to take a police officer gun, and when he succeeded, he used it to knock her at the head. Also, he had been reported earlier, and there was a case filed against him in domestic violence by her cousin. Another reason why he didn't deserve in a reduction in his sentence years is that he is a criminal. When the police tried to take him in he became confrontation and attempted to flee which makes him resist arrest. In Mr. Meeks case he deserved to be granted a habeas relief and also Certificate of Appealability (COA) on all grounds based on the issues that they were presented before the court. This is because some of the evidence had been tampered with, there was a change in the testimony which was presented, and his counsel did not represent him in a way that he would like since he failed to witness who could have helped him in the case.

Position and evidence

The opposing viewpoint

In the Dominic case, his rights were violated this was because the officers who had been injured had filled a statement. The officers statement was not supposed to be used because the offense that he made was for a victimless crime. Also, the statements were prejudicial making them be unduly rendering the sentence made unfair. Poole also contends that the police officers should not have testified as victims since they were not victims of a charged offense which was being in possession of a firearm. On the case of Mr. Meeks, there was no violation of the due process in the denial of a continuance. The admission of the 911 call was not unfair and was relevant to the case. The evidence is believed to be sufficient in supporting the conviction. Lastly, Mr. Meek counsel did not deny him any effective assistance in the case.

Addressing the issues on both sides.

Focusing on both sides of the defendants in their cases after filing their appeals. There might have been a slight of misjudgment in both cases. In Dominic's case, it was proper not to listen to his appeal on his reduction of his sentence. He is violent, and he should be behind bars where people like him are to being corrected on their behavior, and he associates with the people in the society. In regards to Mr. Meek case, the case should be revisited and especially the evidence connecting him to the murder. There were a lot of mistakes made during the whole process and revisiting them can offer a better solution especially on the appeal pledged to the court.

Detail position on the issues

Mr. Poole refused to be arrested, and in his response, he assaulted a police officer by a physical injury on the head. Officer Kaplan statement was read during the hearing, and also the photographs of injuries from Officer Kaplan were accepted in the court. In addition to this case, he was in possession of a firearm which is a felon in the country. This is evident when in court he tries to contend that the Officers were not relevant in the case that he was being charged for.

In the issue of Mr. Meek case, there was a change of testimony, and the evidence was tampered with. Ms. Harris the owner and manager of the club said that the club was not opened on that night of the murder. The club had been opened, and that's where he got drunk before going to fight the deceased. Also, at the request of a videotape from the club surveillance system, it was noted that the surveillance system of that day it had been erased. The counsel who was representing him was not effective this is because he did not interview and call Jason Hawkins who was a witness. The counsel failed to prepare his sister Ra'meka before the testimony. These are reasons enough to show that the counsel was no effective and that denied Mr. Meek a proper trial.

Implications of court decisions on society as a whole.

Courts decisions imply the society this is because they are the ones who decide on what to be done to criminals. Putting some people like Poole behind bars is one way to ensure the people's safety in the society. He could no longer be able to harm anyone since he was in a correctional facility and by the time he got out he is most probably a reformed man and ready to fit in the society. But sentencing some people life sentence when the evidence has tampered on it will make the people in the society to lose faith in the criminal justice system.

Statement of the importance of the issue to society.

In every appeal that is brought before any court, the final judgment made on the appeal is not so far from the previous judgment which had been passed, this is because all judges think on the same having studied the same constitution.

References

REGINALD MEEKS, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. DAVID MCKUNE, et al., Respondent.

Case No. 09-3133

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

607 F. Supp. 2d 1235; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30846

April 9, 2009, Decided

April 9, 2009, Filed

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CONRAD DOMINIC POOLE, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 05-5049

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

241 Fed. Appx. 153; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 18114

April 18, 2007, Submitted

July 30, 2007, Decided

Chalmers, J. and Leverick, F. (2011). When should a Retrial be Permitted After a

Is conviction quashed on Appeal? The Morden Law Review, 74(5), pp.721-749.

Greenland, C. (1996). Appealing Against District Court. The United Kingdom,

Canada, United States, 126(4), p.538-542.

Warnken, B. (2009). United States Civil Law and Criminal Justice Law. Elements

& Procedures and Trial & Appeal. SSRN electrical journal.