Case law of the United States Supreme Court plays a major role in every case presented. Several criminal cases are available to illustrate this. Dwayne Giles v. California proves this. Research regarding the case specifically reveals multiple elements of case law within the proceeding. It has been studied by several universities. These include, but are not limited to: Cornell University, University of Michigan Law School, University of South Carolina School of Law, and the New York University School of Law. Every aspect of the case may be identified to reveal the relation to elements of case law. In the case of Dwayne Giles v. California, the trial, all appeals, and the findings of the United States Supreme Court may be rendered.
The trial, Dwayne Giles v. California exemplified a Supreme Court case in California. The trial was initiated on January. The case concluded on January 22, 2008 (Hussain, 2009). Dwayne Giles was charged with the murder of Brenda Avie. Giles admitted to shooting the victim a total of six times. However, he argued that the action was taken in self-defense (Whitebread, 2000).
[...] The pre-trial procedure followed. The jury was selected during this portion of the proceedings, the speedy trial guarantee was made, fair trial proceedings were held, and the Double Jeopardy Clause was identified. The due process was utilized in order to eradicate outside influences, afford the defendant the opportunity to call witnesses, provide evidence, and present his perception of the facts (Hussain, 2009). The procedure of criminal trial followed the previously mentioned pre-trial procedures. During this portion of the trial, the prosecution attempted to prove Dwayne Gile's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [...]
[...] Several key players in the case are identified, including: Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice John Roberts Jr. Various appeals were raised throughout the case. The most influential appeal reviewed the validity of the Confrontation Clause in relation to the case. The Crawford v.Washington decision affected the case initially. However, it was later proven that different circumstances were met in the Dwayne Giles v. California case. Nevertheless, the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court were specific. Hussain, A. (2009). Reviving Hope for Domestic Violence Prosecutions: Giles v. California. [...]
[...] (Mosteller, 2009) The reason for this assessment was because Crawford recognized a doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. (Mosteller, 2009) It was concluded that Giles had surrendered his right to confront Avie because he had caused the murder for which he was on trial. (Mosteller, 2009) It was further determined that his deliberate criminal act caused Avie to be unavailable to testify. (Mosteller, 2009) The decision was affirmed by the California Supreme Court on the same ground. The findings of the U.S. Supreme Court were specific. [...]
[...] Am. Crim. L. Rev Mosteller, R. P. (2009). Giles v. California: Avoiding Serious Damage to Crawford's Limited Revolution. Lewis & Clark L. Rev Whitebread, C. H., & Slobogin, C. (2000). Criminal procedure: An analysis of cases and concepts (p. 101). Foundation Press. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
