Samuel Katama Ngumbau

 Case Briefs Student’s First Name, Middle Initial(s), Last Name Affiliation Institution Course Number and Name Instructor’s Name and Title Assignment Due Date Case Briefs Instruction I will need the following cases briefed: State v. Pittman (2007), Montana v. Egelhoff (1996), Miller v. State (2001), People v. Aphaylath (1986), People v. Mooney (1986), Terry v. Hamrick (2008), Humphrey v. Wilson (2007), Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), U.S. v. Terry (2013), U.S. v. Bartlett (2008). I will also need each of these cased briefed following this list: Mention the proper case title and the citation in your case summary, Name of the court, name of the judges and the parties to the case, Brief Facts, Issues involved, Important Argument, Final Judgment decision. United States v. Terry, No. 11-4130 (6th Cor. 2013) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details The was between the U.S. and Steven J Terry and was filed as an appeal from the Northern District Court of Ohio in the U.S. appellate court in the sixth circuit. The case was argued on 10th October 2012 and decided on 14th February 2013 by Sutton, White, and Griffin circuit judges (Justia, 2022). Ohio, Sylvester Summers, JR, L.P.A. and CO., and Cleveland for Appellant represented the council. While Daniel R. Ranke, Cleveland, U.S. Attorney's Office and Ohio for Appellee. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary Governor Strickland appointed Terry to assume a vacancy at the County Court of Cuyahoga for the roles of Common Pleas. Through the help of Russo-County Auditor, Terry sought means of retaining the seat through reelection and in Cleveland politics existence. The F.B.I. had access to Russo's mobile phone conversation history and tapped a call that Russo made to the attorney to close cases Terries' docket and supported Terry to do as obligated. Russo later told Terry to plead non-guilty in the summary judgment motions and did as instructed, and the F.B.I. tapped the call. (Justia 2022). Russo pled guilty to counts of 21 political corruption and was incarcerated for 262 months. Terry faced a conviction of conspiracy with Russo in committing honest service fraud and mail fraud by receiving valuable goods from Russo to take official action as a record. The district court in 18 U.S.C. 201 (b)(2)…, sentenced Terry to 63 months imprisonment, which was affirmed by the sixth circuit. A California General Assembly speaker quoted that Jesse could have taken the money from Russo and voted against their ideas and did not have interests in business politics. People v. Aphaylath, 86 NY 2d 945 – NY: Court of Appeals 1986 The case was filled in the New York state appellate court where Howard K. Border – Counsel- Public defender, and Edward J. Nowak represented the Appellant and Wendy Evans Lehmann-Counsel, District Attorney, and Howard R. Relin appeared for the respondent. The Chief Judge was Meyer, Simons, Wachtler, Titone, Alexander, Hancock, Kaye, and Jr, who concurred in the memorandum. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary The appellate division argued the essence of reversing the case and remittance to Monroe County Supreme Court to start a new trial. A Laotian refugee lived for two years in Monroe county and was interdicted and alleged with intentional murder of his wife for one month. During the trial, the defendant attempted to discover the affirmative defense of severe emotional distress to prevent homicide. Citing Penal law sub-section 125.25 {1} {a}, the defendant suffered a traumatic mental illness that affected him for a substantial time, hence causing subconsciousness (Google Scholar, 2022). The defense argued that the defendant's memory loss was attributed to jealousy of his wife's interest in an ex-boyfriend. In Laotian culture, the victim's wife's promiscuous conduct of dating another man and receiving calls was sufficient to trigger the defendant to lose control. The trial judge denied the expert witness statement because he lacked knowledge of the defendant's character and background. On appeal for the second-degree murder conviction, the defendant claimed they accepted nondisclosure of material evidence from two defense witnesses about Laotian culture. The trial court violated its discretional rule in allowing testimony from expert witnesses; thus, the defendant was awarded an unfair trial to exemplify emotional distress in preventing homicide. The judges argued that the conviction was supposed to be reversed and a new trial granted. U.S. v. Bartlett, No. 07-0636-AR (C.A.A.F., 2008) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details The U.S. was the Appellee, and the U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel -David P. Bartlett Jr. was the Appellant. The case was presented at the U.S. Armed forces Court of Appeals, and Stucky, J. delivered the court judgment. C.J., Effron, J.J., Ryan, and Baker enjoined the court opinion. The counsel for the Appellant was Sean F. Mangan-Major, Christopher J. O'Brien-Colonel, and Candace N. White Halverson -Captain. The military Judge was Ronald W. White. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary In a judgment delivered on 7th July 2008 by Judge Stucky, a military judge-court-martial convicted Lieutenant Colonel David of committing unpremeditated murder contrary to Article 118 of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. sub-section 918 of 2000. In the anonymous decision, the court sentenced him to 25 years of incarceration. The U.S. Army criminal appellate court confirmed the findings and sentence. Judge Stucky argued that the military charge committed erroneous acts over executing mandates past his authority delimitations by exposing the defendant to prejudice because his panel did not have the skills of education and benefits of special unit officers (Justia, 2022). Therefore, the structural exclusion of defendants members based on their race was a systematic error deployed in the initial judgment. The Judge affirmed the Army court of appeals decision by supporting that alleged prejudice on the defendant's claims could not change the State of guilt to the conviction. Hence, the military has confirmed that the panel had inclusive critical thinking and professionalism to decide on the case. The absence of the defendant's team was harmless because there was representation on staff, command, division line, and racial and gender aspects. State v. Pittman Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details Henry Jerome Mims of Greer and Mims Law Firm; Arnold Anderson Vickery, Fred H. Shepherd, all of Houston, of Vickery & Waldner, Tx; Chief Attorney Joseph L. CA, P.C. of Los Angeles appeared for the Appellant. Attorney General Henry Dargan and his deputy John W. Mclntosh, assistant deputy attorney- Donald J. Zelenka, and Solicitor Warren Giese, all from Columbia, were the respondent. Guardian Ad Litem was Milton E. Hamilton. The Chief Justice was Toal. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary Christopher Pittman was arraigned in court and charged with double homicide in line with the paternal grandparents' deaths. After the hearing, the family court established that Pittman was 12 years at the scene, and it waived its jurisdiction, sentencing Pittman to two coherent terms of 30 years of incarceration (Justia, 2022). In November 2001, the Appellant used a gun to kill his grandparents-paternal at around a distance of 0.410. The court affirmed the family court’s decision by supporting those juvenile rights are restricted in certain circumstances. In the trial process, a voluntary adult should be present at the discretion of court legislation. The Appellant lacked the basis to assert that he enjoyed legal provocation. Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details Justice Scalia, Antonin Scalia, Justice Thomas, and C.J. Justice Kennedy and Clarence Thomas provided plurality opinions on the case of Egelhoff's homicide trial. Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred with the judgment. Stephen G. Breyer, David H. Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, and John Paul Stevens dissented their opinions in the case. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary During Egelhoff's criminal trial for homicide allegations at the Montana Supreme Court, the Judge commanded the jury to refute evidence of intoxication condition in decision-making on whether he was conscious of being criminally responsible for causing death. Egelhoff filed an appeal supported by the Montana Supreme Court, arguing that toxification could predetermine his mental state requirements. Justices Scalia, C.J. Kennedy, Thomas, and William Hubbs argued on the State's authoritative power to avoid exculpatory evidence relating to mental requirements. Justice Ginsburg concurred and reiterated that States have evidential power to determine the elements in criminal offenses (Justia, 2022). She reiterated that a due process challenge to the determination could be positive if the law offended the tradition and American society's conscience rooted in the principle of justice. Justices Souter, Breyer, and Stevens commented that states have sufficient discretion in defining criminal offense elements unless it contravenes the due process principle. Miller v. State 36 S.W.3d 503 (2001) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details Deleslyn Lightsey Miller was the Appellant in the narcotic trafficking case against the State of Texas at the Criminal appellate court of Texas. En Banc. Austin and Ken Mahaffey appeared for the Appellant while Philip A. Nelson. Jr. State's Atty.- Austin and Asst. Dist. Atty. Mathew Paul represented the State. Judge Holland delivered the court's opinion in which Meyers, Keller, P.J., Price, Holcomb, Keasler, Hervey, and Johnson joined the judgment. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary The Appellant was convicted of delivering Cocaine of less than one gram which amounted to a state jail felony. During the indictment, the Appellant was alleged to have previous convictions of felony offenses. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the delivery of a controlled substance. He requested the trial court to assess her punishment and sentenced the Appellant to six years of confinement (Justia, 2022). The appellate court of Austin argued that the trial court abused the Appellant's rights to discretionary review and found the Appellant's testimony irrelevant. However, the appellate court upheld that the trial court did not have discretion abuse because various accounts of the Appellant's testimony were divergent. It also added that the Appellant had the right to due process, fair trial, and disclosure of particular testimonies- Magee's was misleading and needless to present cumulative evidence if it has a dubious representation of facts. The court affirmed the appellate conviction and guilty. Terry v. Hamrick, Warden S08A0170 Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details Justice Hines delivered a court's opinion at Georgie Supreme Court in 2008, where he suggested that the court granted Mac Terry's reliefs to apply for probable cause after denial of habeas corpus. Terry was indicted in Douglas County on allegations of kidnapping leading to bodily injury, reckless driving, aggravated assault by attempted eluding of a police officer while driving using a suspended license, and criminal trespassing. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary On 10th August 1995, Terry pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. In appealing to suggest an unfair hearing and denial of habeas corpus, the court denied his petition claims based on the proper grant of habeas corpus is affiliated with excellent standard review and factual findings to obtain a credible determination of legal principles (Justia, 2022). Terry was banished from living in any other county as Toombs County, which was in line with the probation service order as a rehabilitation scheme to protect the victim. Hence, the habeas court argued that banishment was practical and reasonable, provided he was obsessed with his ex-wife. It also suggested that Terry had mobility freedom regulated by the probation order; hence, he was mandated to get permission from the jury or the local law enforcement before traveling outside the demarcated territory-Toombs County. The case was affirmed, remanded, and reversed with directory conditions. People v. Mooney (1983) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details The case was booked at Crim. File No. 13817. In the California Appellate Court, 4th District Appellate, Division One. On 27th July 1983. People represented the Plaintiff, and Ronald James Mooney appeared for the defendant and Appellant. Quin Denvir represented the counsel- State Public Defender under the Court of Appeals appointment Mary Howell, Romero, Lynda A. Deputy Public State Defender represented for Appellant and defendant (Justia, 2022). Raquel M. Gonzalez-Deputy Attorneys General, Assistant Attorney General-Michael D. Wellington George Deukmejian-AG., Daniel J. Kremer, and Robert H. Philibosian- Chief Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent and Plaintiff. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary Mooney was convicted of motor vehicle burgling under Penal code sub-section 459. During his appellate application, he claimed that the court gave him an unfair trial through prejudice; hence he argued that auto-tampering was not inclusive in the burglary offense. The Judge reversed the case on the grounds of the requested instructions. Sue Clark packed her Dodge van at Pines Golf Course and locked all doors. Mooney opened the door and entered (Justia, 2022). Mooney tested that he did not damage the van doors. The court argued that auto tampering is a crime associated with vehicular burglary. Section 459 was pertinent to the issue where any person tampering with the vehicle lock code is subject to commit felony guilty to burglary. Judge Work delivered the court opinion that Mooney was guilty of vehicle burglary and his appellant case was unsubstantial because Mooney tampered with the Crack's van content. Wiener, Butler, J. and Acting P.J. concurred with the court's decisions. Humphrey v. Wilson 652 S.E.2d 501 (2007) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details Mary Beth Westmoreland, Deputy Atty. Gen., Paula Khristian Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen. was Appellant in no. S07A1481. The Bernstein Firm, P.C.; Rodney Samuel Zell, Brenda Joy Bernstein, Zell & Zell, P.C., Atlanta, appeared for Appellee in no. S07A1481. Chief Justice Sears delivered the judgment at Georgia Supreme Court on 26th October 2007. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary During the appellate case, Humprehy appealed to request for habeas corpus reliefs to Genarlow Wilson from the Monroe County Superior Court. The habeas court sentenced Wilson to 10 years imprisonment after oral sex with a 15-year-old girl while at 17 years was cruel, inhuman, and unusual parole. However, it was based on his sexual misconduct (Justia, 2022). The court agreed to remand the case by reversing Wilson's conviction and allowing his discharge from custody. Sears supported that the habeas court's judgment was affirmed and reversed it. He quoted that the constitutional provision that malpractices in sentencing and punishment contrary to the law permits the defendant's release. Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993) Case parties, Names of Judges, and Court Details The court case had James E. Doyle, the Wisconsin Attorney General, and Paul Lundsten- assistant A.G. Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Kathleen, Turner, Thomas E. Chandler, and Acting Assistant AG- Keeney, who were interested parties. The judgment was delivered at Wisconsin Supreme Court by Rehnquist, C.J., with a unanimous opinion in the court to reverse the decision. Case facts, Arguments, Judgement, and Summary Mitchell was convicted of aggravated harm after selecting his victim based on race status. The Wisconsin Appellate Court provoked Mitchell's appellate application, which was reversed by the Supreme Court (Justia, 2022). The court held that Mitchell's initial Amendment rights were not infringed during the penalty enhancement application provided in sentencing him. The Supreme Court argument supported the practical implication of first amendment rights; hence, the statute punitive measures did not dispose of Mitchell's claims; thus, selecting victims on protected status like race proclaimed criminal misconduct as the ultimate punishment. Rehnquist, C.J. delivered a court decision at Wisconsin supreme court with a unanimous court opinion to reverse the decision. References Google Scholar. (2022). People v. Aphaylath, 68 NY 2d 945 – NY: Court of Appeals 1986. Retrieved from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=-&q=People+v.+Aphaylath+(1986)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1 Justia US Law. (2022). Humphrey v. Wilson 652 S.E.S.E. 2d 501 (2007). Supreme Court of Georgia Decisions. Crim. No. S07A1481,S07A1606. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2007/s07a1481-1.html Justia US Law. (2022). Miller v. State 36 S.W.S.W. 3d 503 (2001). Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Decisions. No. 1939-99. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2001/-.html Justia US Law. (2022). Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). The U.S.U.S. Supreme Court. Vol. 518. Pp. 56–79. Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/518/37/ Justia US law. (2022). People v. Mooney (1983). Court of Appeals of California 4th Appellate District, Division One. Crim. No. 13817. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/145/502.html Justia US Law. (2022). State v. Pittman. South Carolina Supreme Court Decisions. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/south-carolina/supreme-court/2007/26339.html Justia US Law. (2022). Terry v. Hamrick, Warden S08A0170. Pp. 1–14. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2008/s08a0170.html\ Justia US Law. (2022). U.S.U.S. v. Bartlett, No. 07-0636-AR (C.A.A.F.C.A.A.F. 2008). Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Appl. No-. pp. 1–10. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/caaf/07-0636-AR/07-0636-AR-.html Justia US Law. (2022). United States v. Terry, No-th Cir. 2013). Court of Appeals. Six Circuit I.O.P.32.1(B). Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/11-4130/-. Justia US Law. (2022). Wisconsin v. Mitchell,.508 U.S.U.S. 476 (1993). The U.S.U.S. Supreme Court. 508. Pp. 483–490. Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/476/