Running Head: LAW 1

LAW

Professor

Institution

Course
LAW 2

1st sentencing

After a keen trial of the defendant by this court, the defendant pleads guilty of coming homicide,

kidnapping, drug smuggling, and assault of a police officer. The phase of the penalty decision,

the defendant waived his right of non-jury hearing where the court granted his wish. The

prosecution and the lawyer presented their matter of aggravations during the hearing period on

August 9 2018.  The Spenser hearing occurred on August 11, 2018, and the additional evidence

was presented before the court. The defendant also made his statement considering his

conviction and has been considered upon arriving at the proposed sentence. The court also

considered the sentencing memoranda’s that were presented by the prosecution and the

defendant and other parties of interest and have been considered by the court.

Aggravating factors

The following aggrading factors were found concerning the convicted crimes

1.     The defendant was previously charged with drug abuse and public disturbance.

The defendant Stu Dents was charged on May 4, 2016, for having cocaine against the federal

rule. He was later sentenced to five years. He was later released in 2018 at presidential

pardoning.

2.     The defendant was previously convicted of assaulted a police officer to resist arrest

In 2017 and 2017, the defendant was released on bail for assaulting police officers. Both of these

felonies involved threatening of police officers.

3.     The defendant is also suspected to be involved in burglaries of warehouses and houses.

On January 1, the defendant was charged with been involved in the burglary of a house stealing

money and several items. The case is still in process awaiting a due decision.
LAW 3

Mitigating circumstance

The defendant asked the court to consider the following in the sentencing process.

1.     The defendant committed the crimes for personal gain. In the statements, the detectives

described the defendant as a drug lord and linked his involvement in the death of other drug

cartels. The defendant confessed to have kidnapped other drag cartel, which he said he was doing

the government a favor.

2.     The defendant also asked the court to consider that he assaulted a police officer at strong

emotional influence and the influence of drugs. Two doctors confirmed this by carrying out a

drug test

3.     The defendant also wanted the court and the jury to consider a plea bargain with the state.

After keen consideration of the mitigating circumstance and aggravating factors, the jury finds

that the aggravating circumstance outweighs the mitigating factors. The court, therefore, finds

Stu Dents of the crimes mentioned earlier.

1.     For drug smuggling, kidnapping and homicide, the defendant is sentenced 30 years

2.     For assault of a police officer, the defendant is fined $1000. A plea bargain between the

assaulted office and the defendant is also applicable.

2nd sentencing argument

The defendant was charged in the court on January 1 2019. The jury found the defendant

innocent of the accused crime due to inefficient evidence to support the accused crime. The case

was also heard on January 10, 2019, where the pieces of evidence supporting the aggrieving

factors and mitigation circumstances were presented before the court. On, February 11 2019, the

jury returned a nine to one recommendation that the defendant was innocent and that the
LAW 4

available evidence was not sufficient enough to support the burglary claims charged on the

defendant. On January 30, 2019, a memorandum was received that from both sides. Therefore,

the court set the final sentencing on March 22, 2019.

The federal court having analyzed both evidence presented at the court both at penalty phase and

the guilty phase, the court found out the following issues

 Aggravating factors

1.     The burglary offense lacked clear evidence of unpermitted access to the property by the

defendant. Their prosecution did not provide evidence that could suggest that the defendant came

into possession of the property without prior permission from the victim.

2.     The defendant was a close friend of the victim. During the night of the burglary, the victim

and the defendant had been together during the day. According to the victim, the defendant broke

into the house at night through the living room and stole money safe. After retrieving the money,

the defendant also stole other items in the living room and sneaked through the house backyard.

The events happened approximately 30 minutes past midnight.

3.      The state required the court to find more aggravating factors. This effort meant to avoid

unlawful detention of Stu Dents for the crime of burglary. A section of the defendant’s statement

was that the victim was a close colleague and gave him the items intentionally and didn’t break

into his house. The evidence collected by the detectives showed that there was no physical

damage in an attempt to break-in.

 
LAW 5

Mitigating factors

In the submitting of the sentencing memorandum, the defendant asked the jury to consider the

bellow discussed the issue;

1.     The relationship between the defendant and the victim during the time of the crime.

The defendant testified that the victim was a close friend and he could not steal from him. The

court allowed the defendant to defend himself on owned items owned by the victim. However,

the court was unable to prove if the victim gave the defendant the items, or he just stole them.

2.     The defendant also wanted the jury to consider non-statutory mitigating factors

The family background of the defendant. The defendant said the family supported him in various

ways when he needed their help. The defendant confessed that there was no sense to break into a

house to steal a “penny amount of money.”

The court critically analyzed the aggravating factors and the mitigating factor. The jury finds out

that the evidence provided wasn’t enough to prove any case of burglary.

According to various federal laws from different states, one cannot be convicted to be

guilty unless convicted so by a court of law. At many times the offenders are harshly treated and

punished violating the humanity laws. The eighth amendment of the United States is a bail that

seeks any person, organization, or the government from harshly punishing a convicted offend

(Murphy, 2017). It tries to bring equity between the crime convicted and the punishment given.

The eighth amendment states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive

fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted” (Murphy, 2017).This amendment was

made in 1979 alongside other bails of rights that seemed to protect the human rights of the

citizens. This amendment greatly the punishment charged by the American federal courts. The

fine charged are reasonable as directed by this amendment. This amendment talks of the unusual
LAW 6

and cruel punishment clause. The clause seeks to prevent the government from causing harm to

the offender, whether economically or physically (Kerr, 2016). The Supreme Court can interpret

this cause as the severe punishments that are beyond human coincidence.

This amendment not only focusses on physical and economic injuries that the justice

system can cause on the offender but also, establishing a pleasant environment to convicted

offenders. Provision of food and proper healthcare is part of basic human needs. The eighth

amendment requires protection of the fundamental rights of the offenders, whereby failure to

provide is described as severe punishment.

LAW 7

References

Kerr, O. S. (2016). The effect of legislation on Fourth Amendment protection. Mich. L.

Rev., 115, 1117.

Murphy, C. (2017). The Solitary Confinement of Girls in the United States: International Law

and the Eighth Amendment. Tul. L. Rev., 92, 697.