Tony Tasinas
No Heroes, No Villains
CRJ 101-Professor Smalls
12/7/15
On June 28, 1972, James Richardson awaiting the subway train which would take him to work. He was stopped and ordered to “put up your hands, and get against the wall”. These directions were given by an off duty Transit Authority patrolman named John Skagen. Skagen’s actions seem unprovoked and unnecessary. After a short tussle the two men exchanged shots and Richardson fled the scene on foot. Two other officers that were on the main street above the subway station were made aware of what was transpiring below and rushed to the scene. As they approached the entrance of the station, Richardson who was fleeing the scene ran directly into one of the officers. The officer noticing …show more content…
The case was sent back to the original court and Richardson was resentenced to three years in state prison. This book touched on everything we have reviewed in class this semester. The first half of the book describes mainly the arrest and incarceration details of James Richardson. No Heroes, No Villains relates in many ways to chapter seven- Police and the Constitution: Rules of Law Enforcement in our Criminal Justice book. There were many instances in the book that correlates with the key concepts of this chapter. The fourth amendment plays a major role in No Heroes, No Villains. It seemed that in the book John Skagen had no probable cause in the stop and frisk of James Richardson. I read no evidence that Skagen had determined a totality of circumstances which would prohibit the stop and frisk. We learned in class that there must be probable cause that can be sustained by four major sources. These sources are outlined as personal observation, of which could not have been the case due to the clothing Richardson was wear at the time of the stop. It was noted that Richardson was wearing a dashiki style green shirt that could easily conceal the pistal in …show more content…
The main concept of a voir dire is to determine whether a jury can be “fair, impartial arbiters of fact”. Potential jurors usually are selected from voter registration records for what is commonly referred to as jury duty. In the U.S., they must be from the same jurisdiction as the defendant. After a pool of potential jurors is selected, attorneys for both sides either suggest questions for the judge to ask, or they ask questions themselves of the jurors. The attorneys for both sides have a limited amount of “peremptory challenges,” with which they can bypass the judge and dismiss possible jurors for any reason. William Kunstler used all of his peremptory challenges and also motioned for more. Attorneys might also make a “challenge for cause” if a juror expresses a bias. Challenges for cause usually are unlimited and are considered by the judge, who accepts or rejects them. It was interesting to see how easy it is for the prosecution and defense to manipulate the impartiality of the jury during a voir dire. In this case William Kunstler definitely manipulated the jury selection to what he thought would be a “fair” jury for his case. This seemed to be a theme throughout the
No Heroes, No Villains
CRJ 101-Professor Smalls
12/7/15
On June 28, 1972, James Richardson awaiting the subway train which would take him to work. He was stopped and ordered to “put up your hands, and get against the wall”. These directions were given by an off duty Transit Authority patrolman named John Skagen. Skagen’s actions seem unprovoked and unnecessary. After a short tussle the two men exchanged shots and Richardson fled the scene on foot. Two other officers that were on the main street above the subway station were made aware of what was transpiring below and rushed to the scene. As they approached the entrance of the station, Richardson who was fleeing the scene ran directly into one of the officers. The officer noticing …show more content…
The case was sent back to the original court and Richardson was resentenced to three years in state prison. This book touched on everything we have reviewed in class this semester. The first half of the book describes mainly the arrest and incarceration details of James Richardson. No Heroes, No Villains relates in many ways to chapter seven- Police and the Constitution: Rules of Law Enforcement in our Criminal Justice book. There were many instances in the book that correlates with the key concepts of this chapter. The fourth amendment plays a major role in No Heroes, No Villains. It seemed that in the book John Skagen had no probable cause in the stop and frisk of James Richardson. I read no evidence that Skagen had determined a totality of circumstances which would prohibit the stop and frisk. We learned in class that there must be probable cause that can be sustained by four major sources. These sources are outlined as personal observation, of which could not have been the case due to the clothing Richardson was wear at the time of the stop. It was noted that Richardson was wearing a dashiki style green shirt that could easily conceal the pistal in …show more content…
The main concept of a voir dire is to determine whether a jury can be “fair, impartial arbiters of fact”. Potential jurors usually are selected from voter registration records for what is commonly referred to as jury duty. In the U.S., they must be from the same jurisdiction as the defendant. After a pool of potential jurors is selected, attorneys for both sides either suggest questions for the judge to ask, or they ask questions themselves of the jurors. The attorneys for both sides have a limited amount of “peremptory challenges,” with which they can bypass the judge and dismiss possible jurors for any reason. William Kunstler used all of his peremptory challenges and also motioned for more. Attorneys might also make a “challenge for cause” if a juror expresses a bias. Challenges for cause usually are unlimited and are considered by the judge, who accepts or rejects them. It was interesting to see how easy it is for the prosecution and defense to manipulate the impartiality of the jury during a voir dire. In this case William Kunstler definitely manipulated the jury selection to what he thought would be a “fair” jury for his case. This seemed to be a theme throughout the