Week 8 Assignment 2
**** MUST BE ORIGINAL WORK**** NO PLAGIARISM****
In preparation for this assignment, please view the Jurisville scenarios and resulting simulations from Weeks 5 through 7 in Unit 2: Courts.
In the scenarios and resulting simulations, Tim Smith, senior criminal lawyer, discusses select cases and asks a paralegal to indicate which courts would have exclusive jurisdiction of the cases in question. He also discusses various pretrial procedures and illustrates them with select cases. Finally, Tim Smith introduces the case of Roland Gary, who served twenty-three (23) years in prison for a crime that he did not commit. The case brought to light several key issues, along with the manner in which they were resolved.
Use the Internet to research three real-life cases from the past five (5) years that fit the following criteria:
- Cases that depict the unique processes related to different courts
- The defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial
- The defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated
Write a four (4) page paper in which you:
- Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances.
- Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question. Provide a rationale for the response.
- Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the selected case.
- Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources.
Your assignment must follow these formatting requirements:
- Be typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides; citations and references must follow APA or school-specific format. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
- Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page and the reference page are not included in the required assignment page length.
The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:
- Summarize the current ethical issues faced by criminal justice professionals and future of the criminal justice system.
- Explain the development of American courts and illustrate the concept of the dual-court system.
- Distinguish between the various courtroom participants, and describe the stages in a criminal trial.
- Use technology and information resources to research issues in criminal justice.
- Write clearly and concisely about criminal justice using proper writing mechanics and APA style conventions.
Grading for this assignment will be based on answer quality, logic / organization of the paper, and language and writing skills, using the following rubric.
|
Points: 200 |
Assignment 2: Trials and Verdicts |
||||
|
Criteria |
Unacceptable Below 60% F |
Meets Minimum Expectations 60-69% D |
Fair 70-79% C |
Proficient 80-89% B |
Exemplary 90-100% A |
|
1. Discuss one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and identify the court that took jurisdiction. Explain why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. Weight: 25% |
Did not submit or incompletelydiscussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and did not submit or incompletely identified the court that took jurisdiction. Did not submit or incompletelyexplained why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. |
Insufficientlydiscussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and insufficiently identified the court that took jurisdiction.Insufficientlyexplained why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. |
Partiallydiscussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and partially identified the court that took jurisdiction.Partiallyexplained why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. |
Satisfactorilydiscussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and satisfactorily identified the court that took jurisdiction.Satisfactorilyexplained why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. |
Thoroughlydiscussed one (1) real-life criminal case, taken from current events, and thoroughly identified the court that took jurisdiction.Thoroughlyexplained why the court that took the case was the appropriate one for the particular circumstances. |
|
2. Discuss the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Give your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question. Provide a rationale for your response. |
Did not submit or incompletelydiscussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Did not submit or incompletelygave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question. Did not submit or incompletelyprovided a rationale for your response. |
Insufficientlydiscussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.Insufficientlygave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question.Insufficientlyprovided a rationale for your response. |
Partiallydiscussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Partiallygave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question.Partiallyprovided a rationale for your response. |
Satisfactorilydiscussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial. Satisfactorilygave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question.Satisfactorilyprovided a rationale for your response. |
Thoroughlydiscussed the real-life case that you have selected, in which the defendant accepted a plea bargain as an alternative to trial.Thoroughlygave your opinion on whether or not justice was served in the case in question.Thoroughlyprovided a rationale for your response. |
|
3. Discuss the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated. Explore one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large. Describe the resolution to the selected case. Weight: 30% |
Did not submit or incompletelydiscussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated. Did not submit or incompletelyexplored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large.Did not submit or incompletelydescribed the resolution to the selected case. |
Insufficientlydiscussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated.Insufficientlyexplored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large.Insufficientlydescribed the resolution to the selected case. |
Partiallydiscussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated.Partiallyexplored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large. Partiallydescribed the resolution to the selected case. |
Satisfactorilydiscussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated.Satisfactorilyexplored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large.Satisfactorilydescribed the resolution to the selected case. |
Thoroughlydiscussed the real-life case that you selected, in which, like Roland Gary, the defendant was wrongly accused and later vindicated.Thoroughlyexplored one (1) key aspect of the case and examine its relation to the case at large.Thoroughlydescribed the resolution to the selected case. |
|
4. 3 references Weight: 5% |
No references provided |
Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. |
Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. |
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
|
5. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements Weight: 10% |
More than 8 errors present |
7-8 errors present |
5-6 errors present |
3-4 errors present |
0-2 errors present |
Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!