• Uncategorized

Violence and Drugs in Centervale

Violenceand Drugs in Centervale


Violenceand Drugs in Centervale

Thisis a case of City of Centervale against Abby who has been chargedwith illegally growing marijuana and illegal possession of a firearm.I am a second year defense attorney and I will be representing Abby.Abby and Bobby are dating and in that particular day they werequarreling when the police intervened. The problem escalated andBobby threatened to take action or rather to kill her in front of thepolice which called for his arrest. I her statement Abby admits thatshe said that she was going to bail him out after making anadditional $1,500. At the same time, in his statement office Edwardexplains that his partner looked in the house and found bong andbaggie on the coffee table and a shotgun was under the couch. Theevidence being used against Abby includes bong and baggie, the cash($8500) found in the house, an illegal firearm, and a receipt inAbby’s handwriting. The important thing to note is that Abby wasdrunk when she was arrested and this explains why she barelyrecollects the events of that fateful day.

Athorough review of the report filed by Officer Edward coupled up byAbby’s statement concludes that the charges brought against thedefendant can be suppressed. This is particularly true based on theevidence brought up against her. First of all the evidence brought upagainst the client contradict the provisions of the fourth amendmentwhich is meant to protect the client’s rights against unlawfulsearches and seizure (Smirnova, 2016). The fourth amendment providesthat any arrest that is supposed to be made must be accompanied by anarrest warrant which was missing in this case. Thus, the questioningof the client was illegal. Furthermore to make it worse she was notin her normal state of mind because she was drunk which means thatanything that she could have said in her drunken state is null andvoid and cannot be used against her in a court of law. Further, theissued warrant only entailed searching and seizing marijuana and theillegal firearm in the house. Thus, it did not in any way offer anyconsideration to undertake further searches in the house. This meansthat the officers overstepped their mandate when they resorted tosearch the basement.

WhatAbby said at the crime scene in relation to the sale of moremarijuana to raise $1500 to bail out Bobby out of jail is notadmissible in a court of law (Smirnova, 2016). In her defense it isimperative to note that she was drank and not in her normal senses.In fact, she was not aware what was going on and this is furtherexplained by the fact that even after getting hurt she could notremember that she was hurt, and it is the police who realized thatshe had blood trickling down her cheek. After interviewing thedefendant as her attorney it was evident that she could notmeticulously remember her past activities when questioned by thepolice illegally. At the same time she could not remember whether shewas in a police car (Kerr, 2013).

Accordingto the law, suspects are required to be reminded their rights andthis entails reading out the Miranda’s rights before undertakingany form of interrogation, otherwise the whole process of questioningsuspects will be termed as illegal. Thus, suspects have a right to anattorney and they also have a right to remain silent. The inadmissibility of the case can also be stated from the fact that theevidence that she gave was not signed by her and this looks as if itwas falsified. The main argument that can be brought forward is thateither my client was under duress or was not in the right state ofmind. May be the officers compelled my client to admit that she wasinvolved in all that she was being accused of in order to get a favorin return, and since my client had emotional connection with herboyfriend, she probably said what the officers wanted to hear.Moreover, being intoxicated at the time of her arrest illustratesthat the statement is a false report that cannot be used against her(Kerr, 2013).

Followingthe evidence provided by the police offers it is important toacknowledge that the state meets the burden of proof. The marijuana,cash, and firearm are incriminating evidence that can be used in acourt of law to send the suspect to prison. Sure enough the evidenceis admissible in a court of law as all point out that Abby wasinvolved in a marijuana trade owing to her initial statements andpossessing huge amounts of money in cash and the written receipts.Moreover, the fact that she was at home at the time of making herstatement, the liability of her statement may hold in a court of law.However, in order to go around the charges and seek for a plea, it isprudent to argue that the fourth amendment was violated in the caseof my client and the evidence found to charge Abby was illegallyseized as there was no warrant at the time of the search (Levin,2015).

Lookingat the charges and evidence brought against my client, it isessential to admit that the best option is to go for a plea bargainand not a trial. Since the prosecutor has sufficient information andthere are a wide range of evidence that point out that Abby wasindeed guilty despite that fact that the right procedure was not usedin the accessing the evidence, it is imperative to consider a betterchoice and in this case a plea instead of a trial. If Abby was to goto trial, the whole process will be lengthy and costly in the longrun, and her sentence particularly could be harsher as compared towhat she is likely to derive from a plea bargain. The factors toconsider in requesting for a plea include the clean criminal recordsof the client and her current state (pregnant). Thus, two to threeyear probation will suffice as a viable recommendation to be given tothe prosecutors as opposed to a jail term in a bid to provide thebest environment for the mother to be (Abby).

Basedon the underlying facts and evidence, it is important to note thatthere is a high chance that Abby will be found guilty. Thus, in theevent that my client is found guilty, in her defense I willarticulate the violation of the 4thamendment. At the same time she deserves and has a right to speedyand fair trial by a jury and she has the right to know the accusersand find legal representation in a court of law in form of witnesses.Having considered the role of the jury and the witnesses, I will tryand interview several witnesses including the officers at the sceneto ascertain the accuracy of their reports. The government in thiscase should ensure that it protects all her legal rights and sheshould not be subjected to unnecessary trauma in a bid to close thecase. In essence, there should be a clear framework in theestablishment of a jury. Moreover, as a suspect, she deserves to beprotected from self-incrimination.

Inaddition, I will also argue that there were numerous rights that wereviolated during the arrest. The client did not have protection of anattorney, she was not in her right mind, and the officers did notfollow the due process in acquiring the evidence and conductingsearches. In fact, she can be termed as a victim of circumstances bythe fact that the officers who arrived at the scene had issues withthe couple regardless of the fact that Abby had never been chargedwith any crime before. The negative perception already registered bythe officers who made an arrest made them jump into conclusionsimmediately without any probable cause (Muižnieks, 2013). While theboyfriend to my client had showed emotional imbalance, my client doesnot deserve to suffer for the sins of her boyfriend.

Thefact that Abby is six months pregnant and a first time offender givesher a chance to win the case, however, if found guilty, the juryneeds to take into consideration her current state. The 4th,5thand 6thamendments will suffice as viable options to support my theory. The4thamendment supports protection of her rights from illegal searches andarrest, the 5thamendment provides Abby with the provisions of a jury trial while the6thamendment provides for the right to speedy and fair trial (Muižnieks,2013). The significance of opting for a plea bargain is based on theneed to come forth a less harsh judgment as compared to a trial.Factors to consider in consenting to a plea bargain include theconcreteness of the evidence in possession of the prosecutors, andthe consequences of guilty judgments in a trial, and the defendantshould finally consider whether to go to trial taking intoconsideration a win or loss factors (Tor, Gazal-Ayal, &amp Garcia,2010).

Inconclusion, the case against Abby has incriminating evidence that maylead to her being jailed. At the same time, since she had confessed,the court will likely go for what was recorded by the officers sincethere was supporting evidence. In order to make her charges bedropped, it is important to use the fourth amendment act and pointout that the rights of my client were violated. Further, she did notremember her rights and this explains why she had confessed in thefirst place. The law requires that whenever an arrest is made theMiranda’s rights are to be read out to the people arrested theright to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If the stateprovides room for a plea, I will advise my client to take a pleabased on its severity and conditions. If the plea is severe it willbe better for the client to proceed with a trial. After assessing theevidence and ascertaining that it is weak, I will advise the clientwe fight the case to have it dismissed. However, if the evidence isstrong, then it will be essential for Abby to accept a plea bargain.


Kerr,O. (2013). The Curious History of Fourth Amendment Searches.&nbspTheSupreme Court Review,2012(1),67-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/670228

Levin,A. (2015). MH Court Cuts Violence, Even in Felony Cases.&nbspPsychiatricNews,&nbsp50(8),1-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2015.4b13

Muižnieks,N. (2013). The Future of Human Rights Protection in Europe.&nbspSecurityand Human Rights,24(1),43-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18750230-02401007

Smirnova,I. (2016). The Asymmetry of the Rights of the Victim and the Accused(Suspect).&nbspVestnikof the Omsk Law Academy,(2), 59-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.19073/2306-1340-2016-2-59-62

Tor,A., Gazal-Ayal, O., &amp Garcia, S. (2010). Fairness and theWillingness to Accept Plea Bargain Offers.&nbspJournalof Empirical Legal Studies,&nbsp7(1),97-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01171.x