JUS375 Milestone 2 SNHU Miranda and Hinckley case I have attached the RUBRIC & GUIDELINES! You will analyze two more case study scenarios and provide y
JUS375 Milestone 2 SNHU Miranda and Hinckley case I have attached the RUBRIC & GUIDELINES!
You will analyze two more case study scenarios and provide your insights into how each case should be handled. The
scenarios will also be addressed as Sections I and V of your final project.
Read the scenarios and then provide a short analysis based on the questions that follow.
Your paper must be about two to three pages long and must use double spacing, 12‐point Times New Roman font, and one‐inch margins. Include appropriate scholarly sources to support your ideas. In‐text citations and the reference list should be formatted according to APA style.
Case Review: Miller v. Alabama
This case proceeding reviews the case of two 14-year-olds charged with murder and the subsequent penalties. This case will support your work on Section IV of the final project.
Library Article: When Turnabout Is Fair Play: Character Evidence and Self-Defense in Homicide and Assault Cases
This article examines self-defense claims in relation to murder charges. JUS 375 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric
Prompt: For this milestone, you will analyze two more case study scenarios and provide your insights into how each case should be handled. The
scenarios will also be addressed as Sections I and V of your final project.
Read the scenarios and then provide a short analysis based on the questions that follow.
Miranda
A uniformed police officer is dispatched to a bank robbery. Upon arrival, John Smith is already under arrest by the detectives for committing the
robbery and shooting the guard. He is placed in the back of the officer’s cruiser. During the drive back to the station, Smith yells out, “I am so sorry I
shot him!” One month later, the officer is called to testify about Smith’s statement. Smith’s defense attorney argues that the officer failed to read
him his Miranda rights.
Consider if his statements are admissible given the fact he was not read his Miranda Rights prior to making them.
A. Imagine yourself as the judge presiding over this case. Clearly and accurately evaluate the constitutional parameters that emerged from the
Miranda decision. How has this case influenced the practice of law enforcement?
B. Describe your ruling for the bank robbery case, citing the Miranda case. How did Miranda influence your decision‐making process?
Hinckley
On March 30, 1981, John Hinckley attempted to kill President Reagan. There were several witnesses to the shooting, and the evidence was
overwhelming. Research this case and imagine yourself as Hinckley’s defense attorney.
A. Apply the Model Penal Code test to this case to determine Hinckley’s mental state defense and what the jury’s verdict would have to be. Be
sure to defend your response.
B. After the Hinckley verdict was reached, many states opted for a new test to be utilized. The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 shifted the
burden of proof from prosecution to defense. Apply the present statutory test to the case. How do you believe the jury would vote if Hinckley
were tried today? Why?
C. What historical milestone case involving the Second Amendment emerged from the events of this situation? How has this case impacted
the criminal justice practitioner?
Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be about two to three pages long and must use double spacing, 12‐point Times New Roman font, and
one‐inch margins. Include appropriate scholarly sources to support your ideas. In‐text citations and the reference list should be formatted according to
APA style.
Rubric
Critical Elements
Miranda:
Constitutional
Parameters
Miranda: Ruling
Exemplary (100%)
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites specific, relevant examples
to establish a robust context of
evaluation
Proficient (85%)
Clearly and accurately evaluates
the constitutional parameters
that emerged from the Miranda
decision and explains how this
influenced the practice of law
enforcement
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
Describes ruling, citing the
uses industry‐specific language to Miranda case, and how the case
establish expertise
influenced decision‐making
process
Hinckley: Model Penal Meets “Proficient” criteria and
uses concrete evidence to
Code Test
substantiate claims
Needs Improvement (55%)
Evaluates the constitutional
parameters that emerged from
the Miranda decision and
explains how this influenced law
enforcement, but evaluation is
vague or inaccurate
Not Evident (0%)
Value
Does not evaluate the
constitutional parameters that
emerged from the Miranda case
or explain how this influenced the
constitutional acts of law
enforcement
18
Describes ruling, citing the
Does not describe ruling
Miranda case, but does not
describe how the case influenced
decision‐making process
18
Accurately applies the Model
Penal Code test to the case to
determine the verdict and
defends response
Applies the Model Penal Code
Does not apply the Model Penal
test to the case to determine the Code test to the case to
determine the verdict
verdict, but application is
inaccurate or does not defend
response
18
Accurately applies the present
statutory test to the case to
determine the jury’s verdict and
justifies response
Applies the present statutory test Does not apply the present
statutory test to the case to
to the case to determine the
jury’s verdict, but application is determine the jury’s verdict
inaccurate or does not justify
response
18
Hinckley: Burden of
Proof
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
determination is well supported
and plausible
Hinckley: Historical
Milestone Case
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
Identifies the historical milestone
uses industry‐specific language to case involving the Second
Amendment that emerged from
establish expertise
the events of the Hinckley case
and determines how the case
impacted the criminal justice
practitioner
Identifies the historical milestone
case involving the Second
Amendment that emerged from
the events of the Hinckley case
but does not determine how the
case impacted the criminal justice
practitioner
Does not identify the historical
milestone case involving the
Second Amendment that
emerged from the events of the
Hinckley case
18
Articulation of
Response
Submission is free of errors
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and organization spelling, syntax, or organization
and is presented in a professional
and easy to read format
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact readability
and articulation of main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
Earned Total
10
100%
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
