please avoid plagiarism and use simple grammar as English is not my first language.
Question four needed as a speech form.
Comply with allAPA formatting and citation guidelines.
Question 1 (30 points)
In Ohio, in the case of Bradshaw v. Stumpf (2005), Stumpf was involved in a robbery and aggravated murder with another accomplice. Stumpf admitted to shooting one individual but maintained that his accomplice had shot the other victim who died. He eventually plead guilty and was sentenced to death for the murder. In the trial of his accomplice, however, the state provided evidence that the accomplice admitted to the shooting death. Stumpf filed an appeal to remove his plea based on evidence presented at his accompliceâ€™s trial. The Ohio court denied his appeal. A federal district court denied it as well. However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and had to decide whether Stumpfâ€™s conviction was valid because the prosecution used evidence that was inconsistent in the trials of Stumpf and his accomplice. In a 9-0 decision, the Court held that Stumpfâ€™s plea was valid because his attorney had explained to him the charges and he entered into the plea agreement knowingly. The Court did say that they felt the death sentence may be in error because of the prosecutorâ€™s conduct. They sent the case back down to the Sixth Circuit to re-sentence Stumpf.
- a) Analyze whether plea bargaining is appropriate when there are multiple defendants on trial (1 paragraph);
- b) Discuss whether the government should have to determine who is responsible for which offenses before they can attempt to elicit a plea deal (1 paragraph); and
- c) Discuss whether plea-bargaining should be banned and Why. Be specific. Please be clear with your position and make sure to fully reason the â€œwhysâ€ (1-2 paragraphs).
Question 2 (20 points)
The Speedy Trial Act ensures that (alleged) criminals are brought to justice promptly. It sets out provisions for the number of days within which a suspect must be charged, the time frame within which the initial appearance should take place, and how long before a trial should begin. In the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), the defendant was charged with criminal trespass and his case resulted in a mistrial. Instead of re-trying the case, the government stated in the court record a motion of nolle pro- sequi with leave, not specifying whether or when they intended to decide about prosecuting the case. Klopfer appealed this decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually weighed in stating that it was unconstitutional to indefinitely postpone Klopferâ€™s trial without providing an adequate reason for doing so. In other words, this type of delay violated the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and would jeopardize the credibility to witness testimony, and the fairness of the trial due to pre-trial publicity. Respond to the following:
- a) Explain the importance of a speedy trial and trial process and why the protection of the same may be (personally) important to a criminal defendant (1 paragraph); and
- b) Discuss whether the government should be able to re-try someone after they have already failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a previous trial (1 paragraph).
Question 3 (30 points)
Bench trials and jury trials were a topic in your text during the most recent module. Please respond to the following, using what you have learned from your studies:
- a) Explain the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial (1 paragraph);
- b) Discuss whether there is evidence to indicate that a defendant is better off having a bench trial as opposed to a jury trial (1 paragraph); and
- c) Analyze whether all those accused of a crime should have the right to a jury trial, under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1 paragraph).
Question 4 (20 points)
Please review this clip: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mandatory-minimum-sentencing-injustice- served/. Since Lee Wollardâ€™s sentencing, the Florida Supreme Court has repudiated mandatory minimum sentences for the crime(s) he was convicted of. This repudiation doesnâ€™t apply retroactively. Therefore, Lee was not released as a result. Organize a 5-minute oral presentation in which you:
- a) Discuss at least 3 of the 5 most commonly articulated philosophies/goals of sentencing; and
- b) Argue for or against repudiation (changes in previous law) applying retroactively in Leeâ€™s case or others. Be sure to clearly explain your reasoning and offer other examples that may benefit from your position/reasoning.
Use your device to film yourself and submit the video presentation as a separate artifact under Learning Activity 3 in Canvas.