Analyzing Michigan V Bryant

PAGES
2
WORDS
817
Cite
Related Topics:

¶ … Michigan v. Bryant case. It will cover the case's procedural statement, relevant facts, issue presented on appeal, court ruling, rationale, authorities cited, and final disposition on appeal. Relevant Facts

In the middle of the night (approximately 3:25 A.M.) on 29th April, 2001, police officers in Detroit, Michigan, acting in response to a message on radio, which indicated that a man wounded by a gunshot had been found, arrived at the spot to find Anthony Covington -- the victim -- with a bullet in his abdomen. He looked like he was in great agony and was finding difficulty speaking. The officers asked him what happened and where, and the name of the person who shot him. Covington could only manage to say the word, "Rick," and that the incident took place on 126 St. at 3 a.m. Further, he indicated that he and Bryant spoke (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHIGAN, PETITIONER v. RICHARD PERRY BRYANT MICHIGAN v. BRYANT, 2011). The police spoke for about 5-10 minutes with Covington, until emergency services arrived at the spot and took him to an emergency room. Covington succumbed to his wound in a few hours. After the ambulance took off, the police officers sought backup, and made their way to Bryant's residence. Bryant was not...

...

Additionally, police stumbled upon Covington's identification and wallet outside Bryant's house. Before the state Supreme Court, the defendant asserted that the deceased Covington's words to police officers were inadmissible, being testimonial under Davis v. Washington and Crawford v. Washington. But the State claimed that, under Michigan's Rules of Evidence, his words could be admitted as being "excited utterances." Upon remand, the appellate court again affirmed their verdict, by claiming that the statement of Covington was admitted properly, as it wasn't testimonial. Once again, Bryant appealed before the state's Supreme Court, and his conviction was reversed (SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHIGAN, PETITIONER v. RICHARD PERRY BRYANT MICHIGAN v. BRYANT, 2011).
Procedural Statement

At the court trial, Covington's words to police officers at the parking lot of a gas station, where he was found wounded, were used as testimony against Bryant. He was judged as guilty of committing second-degree manslaughter, being a criminal possessing a firearm, as well as possessing…

Sources Used in Documents:

References

(2011). LII / Legal Information Institute. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHIGAN, PETITIONER v. RICHARD PERRY BRYANT MICHIGAN v. BRYANT. Retrieved March 19, 2016, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-150.ZO.html

Writer Thoughts


Cite this Document:

"Analyzing Michigan V Bryant" (2016, March 25) Retrieved May 20, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/analyzing-michigan-v-bryant-2157819

"Analyzing Michigan V Bryant" 25 March 2016. Web.20 May. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/analyzing-michigan-v-bryant-2157819>

"Analyzing Michigan V Bryant", 25 March 2016, Accessed.20 May. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/analyzing-michigan-v-bryant-2157819

Related Documents

Hearsay evidence and the Confrontation Clause of Amendment VI. The main objective of the American constitutional provision under study was: prevention of ex-parte affidavit deposition, which was employed against prisoners in place of personal questioning and cross-questioning of witnesses. (CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Sixth Amendment). The main objectives that this paper will look at include: The confrontation right is one among the basic assurances of liberty and life The 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause assures

Hearsay evidence and the Confrontation Clause of Amendment VI. The main objective of the American constitutional provision under study was: prevention of ex-parte affidavit deposition, which was employed against prisoners in place of personal questioning and cross-questioning of witnesses. (CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Sixth Amendment). The main objectives that this paper will look at include: The confrontation right is one among the basic assurances of liberty and life The 6th Amendment's Confrontation Clause assures

But what makes up a positive portrayal of homosexuality in the media? Ellen and Will are both examples from prime-time television, the kind described by Calzo as "laughable, one dimensional figures." Are such one dimensional representations of homosexuals capable of altering a public's perception of homosexuality in a positive way? If so, what is to be said of the erotically-charged representations shown by cable and premium networks, such as Showtime,