Hypothetical

9 Pages 2319 Words

alking in a suspicious manner, I do not see reasonable doubt for a private persons arrest. A crime was not committed in the presence of the citizens, and he was not doing anything illegal except possibly carrying a gun without a license. In this situation I believe the appropriate thing to do would have been to notify police versus making a private persons arrest.
Mr. Lifestruggle was being charged with the death of the gunshot victim. His trial was set to take place within eighty-five days. The sixth amendment states “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense” (Inciardi p.344). The period of time for a felony charge is usually sixty to one hundred and twenty days depending on the jurisdiction, thus the eighty-five days is within the limit.
“Although the Sixth amendment did not mention the number of persons required to constitute a jury, it was generally accepted that the common law rule of twelve persons would prevail” (Stuckey, Roberson, Wallace p. 144). The case Williams v. Florida the U.S. Supreme court held that a jury comprising of fewer than twelve persons, in accordance with the laws of the state involved, did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It addressed that a jury may consist of no fewer than six jury members, but typically a jury consisted of twelve. However, Mr. Lifestruggle had a jury that consisted of fifteen jurors (three of which were alternatives), none of which was of the same race as defendant. This creates a problem with none of the ju...