JURY AND LAW ENACTMENTS
Students Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor
Course No
Due Date
Q 1.
The similarity between the indictment, a complainant, and information is that they all are charging documents used to place charges against the defendant while in court. They majorly deal with initiating the various charges that the defendant has been arraigned in court after committing a particular act. They further validate the prosecutor’s essence of having valid evidence to establish an immediate cause that led to the committing of a particular crime that the defendant is accused of (Ye at el. 2019). The charging document, however, varies with the form of presentation as below.
A complaint is a form or statement baring essential facts of the offense that the defendant should be charged with, usually implemented under the oath of a law enforcement official in the court, such as a police officer. On the other hand, information takes a formal document used in court as a charging document. It puts forward the criminal charges against the offender and the viable factual essentials concerning the charges but only on the jury’s vote. On the other hand, the information puts forward the factual essentials about a case like the incident does but not necessarily with the jury’s vote.
Q2.
A deadly force has forced a force that can cause bodily harm like injury or death. A law enforcement officer is subjected to using of deadly force when in the following circumstances where there is a significant threat to the lives of the public members, especially their lives and secondly when there is a significant threat to the life of the officer and the only way it can be controlled is through the use of the excessive force (Police Foundation (US), 2016), thus deadly force.
The use of deadly force can lead to legal charges when used illegally, and the fact that the force was used in illegal or malicious acts is proven to be true. The same implications might range from being sued in the court for murder if the deadly force used resulted in death or culpable homicide in terms of murder if it resulted in the same.
Q3.
The supreme court, on the court case of Arizona vs. Gant, it was decided that the police would be in apposition to search a vehicle of the timely acceded recent owner or occupant after his arrest has been made if in any case it is believed that the occupant may tamper with the evidence on hold in the vehicle if at any point he or she will get to access the vehicle. On the other hand, the Carroll doctrine, on the other hand, is before an arrest, unlike Arizona v Gant (Totten, 2017). It puts forward that the police are not to search the vehicles on highways unless it is a prohibition officer tasked with the same. If a search is done in any instance, there should have been prior information about the vehicle relating to unlawful activities.
Q4.
When it comes to jury sittings to do with criminal cases, the jury is usually summoned and screened to be on the cases. Through a voir dier process, the attorneys and judges usually ask relevant questions to both sides of the jurors’ case (Stempel, 2017). This will evaluate their competence to sit in the relevant case.
Peremptory challenges are when a juror is excluded without the need for explanation. It is limited to race, religion, working capacity, nationality, affiliation, and occupation.
References
Ye, H., Jiang, X., Luo, Z., & Chao, W. (2018). Interpretable charge predictions for criminal cases: Learning to generate court views from fact descriptions—arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.08504.
Police Foundation (US), & Milton, C. (2016). Police use of deadly force (pp. 45-46). Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Totten, C., & Cobkit, S. (2018). Police Vehicle Searches under the Fourth Amendment: Evaluating Chief’s Perceptions of Search Policies and Practices after Arizona v. Grant. Man. LJ, 41, 49.
Stempel, J. W. (2017). Judicial Peremptory Challenges as Access Enhancers. Fordham L. Rev., 86, 2263.