In April 2006, he attended a 40-hour class geared toward preparing individuals to interview children in situations such as this case. [57] The government argued that the limitation in Duro was a statutory limitation of the tribe's sovereignty, not a constitutional limit, and that Congress had the authority to remove that limitation.
United States v. Lara - Wikipedia J.O. R.K. testified people are not supposed to touch certain parts of her body. [12] The Act provided that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction[fn 4] over certain Indian-on-Indian crimes[fn 5] when the crimes were committed in "Indian country. about the matter. and C.A. (Pen. As a result, defense counsel questioned the reliability of the videotaped interview. Luckey testified he received additional training in April 2007 and May 2007. He gave a confession, which was admitted into evidence, and the girl gave
He also experienced some twitches he could not control. and C.A., who has a friend, Shelley Lara, that provides childcare often as she works evenings. Points raised include: The case has been widely covered in books and news media. said it was outside her vagina on both occasions. Founded over 20 years ago, vLex provides a first-class and comprehensive service for lawyers, law firms, government departments, and law schools around the world. Defense counsel argued to the jury the State failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt because R.K. testified defendant had never touched her with anything beside his hand. The federal government has exclusive jurisdiction as regards the states, however, the Indian tribes retain. Kathleen testified R.K. told her about the allegations against defendant in the car when she and R.K. were alone. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. "[105] Thomas further questioned the law[106] ending the practice of making treaties with the tribes, noting that this was the one clear constitutional provision that provides for dealing with other sovereigns. Lara brought up the constitutional issues of double jeopardy ("[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb", At least in part, it appears that the Supreme Court took the case to resolve a. Indian tribes are not bound by the Bill of Rights. said that on two occasions about a month earlier, Jason had touched her private part.. In this case, we find the jurys decision to believe R.K.s statement regarding defendant licking her pee pee was reasonable.
CRIM 211 Midterm Study Guide.docx - Midterm Study Guide Instead, J.O. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio.
People v. Lara, 402 Ill. App. 3d 257 (2010) | Caselaw Access Project Section 12 14.1(a)(1) of the Code states a defendant commits predatory criminal sexual assault of a child if *** the accused was 17 years of age or over and commits an act of sexual penetration with a victim who was under 13 years of age when the act was committed. 720 ILCS 5/12 14.1(a)(1) (West 2006). Therefore, the case hinges on the tribes' inherent sovereignty, and based on precedent, the tribes possess that power. Augustina and Cordero testified at the hearing on the motion about the circumstances in which they elicited J.O. R.K. had her own bedroom on the first floor of the house. However, she testified he was alone with the children once or twice for approximately two hours when she went to the grocery store. When asked which parts, R.K. pointed down. 's father. was sleeping on the floor after having been brought overnight for babysitting by defendants
Rolandis G., 232 Ill. 2d at 33, 902 N.E.2d at 611. Augustina's sister brought J.O. During R.Ks interview with Luckey, Luckey asked her if there were places on her body other people should not touch. [408 Ill.App.3d 736] The court instructed the jurors that when they considered the testimony of any witness, they could take into account the witness's, ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in the light of all the evidence in the case.. She, R.K., and her son live in a two-story house with a basement. Defendant had the opportunity to cross-examine the victim in this case, and she answered all of his questions. MEYERSCOUGH, EJ., and TURNER, J., concur. woke up. [41] Senechal denied this motion, noting that Lara had shown no examples of other races not being prosecuted for like offenses. After viewing the videotape, we do not find the trial court abused its discretion in finding the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of reliability (725 ILCS 5/115 10(b)(1) (West 2006)). Advanced A.I. Donec aliquet. [98] He would have reversed the Eighth Circuit without going into the additional detail. The child testified she made several drawings during her meetings with the DCFS investigator, some of which she identified *270during her testimony. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. The corroboration rule requires evidence be present to support the confession from the defendant. The trial court found that [408 Ill.App.3d 735] the questions did not effectively coach J.O. At trial, he denied any inappropriate behavior. Kato specifically asked whether Jason put his hand inside her, and J.O. Defense counsel at both trial and on appeal provide a somewhat misleading representation of R.K.s testimony. [68] It was noted that members of Indian tribes were at the same time United States citizens, and protected under the constitution in the same manner as any other citizen. slept, he put his finger into her vagina as far as his fingernail, and then J.O. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. For example, some states have abandoned the insanity defense and the U.S .Supreme Court. The jury could have found R.Ks videotaped statement more complete and trustworthy than her trial testimony, given its proximity *267in time to the incident. Jason Lara, was found guilty of two counts of, predatory criminal sexual assault for inserting his finger into the vagina of an eight-, year-old girl. Jason appealed his conviction, arguing that the State had failed to prove, the corpus delicti of the offense, because they had failed to present any evidence. . Jason now appeals. Jason testified that he never touched J.O. Conspiracies and how attachment works for certain crimes, drug trafficking, RICO, etc. [104] Crow Dog was tried in federal court for murder, found guilty, and sentenced to hang. He also experienced some twitches he could not control. The trial court sentenced him to terms of 10 years and 8 years in prison, with the sentences to run consecutively. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. 3d at 955, 909 N.E.2d at 978, quoting People v. Robertson, 312 Ill. App. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must establish (1) his counsels performance was so deficient the attorney was not functioning as counsel guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution, and (2) he was prejudiced by the deficient performance. testified that for the first incident, while she slept, she felt Jason's hand inside her pants, touching her vagina. R.K. testified defendant would stand and look at her when he was not touching her. JUSTICE NEVILLE delivered the judgment of . [408 Ill.App.3d 733] A jury found the defendant, Jason Lara, guilty of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault (PCSA) for inserting his finger into the vagina of an eight-year-old girl, J.O. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio.
3d 108, 114, 915 N.E.2d 29, 34 (2009), appeal allowed, 233 Ill. 2d 581, 919 N.E.2d 360 (2009), quoting Reed, 361 Ill. App. See Brief for Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe of North Dakota et al. Explain the positive contributions of firms to society. 112370. slept at Shelley's home, where Shelley's son, Jason, also slept. Updated daily, vLex brings together legal information from over 750 publishing partners, providing access to over 2,500 legal and news sources from the worlds leading publishers. Upload your study docs or become a [fn 16], Alexander F. Reichert was appointed by the Supreme Court to argue the case for Lara. Jason raises six separate arguments on appeal. Reed, 361 Ill. App. [87] The earlier decisions in Duro, Wheeler, and Oliphant dealt with cases where Congress had restricted a tribe's inherent powers but pointed at nothing in the Constitution or established precedent that prohibits Congress from relaxing such restrictions. "[124] Thomas further stated, "Federal Indian policy, is, to say the least, schizophrenic. At the hearing, Officer Luckey testified he had been a police officer for 20 years. [fn 21][108] Thomas noted that a delegation of prosecutorial power is always to an executive branch and that the tribes are not part of any executive branch of the Federal government. Subscribers are able to see a list of all the documents that have cited the case. Br. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the States evidence, we view the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the State proved the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 's out-of-court statements. Case Law; Illinois; People v. Lara, No. Crow Dog was ordered released, having made restitution under tribal law to Spotted Tail's family. The parties stipulated that in January 2005 Jason was 19 years old. criminal sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl on two separate dates in January of 2005,
[97] Finally, Kennedy was concerned that the court did not address the question of the Equal Protection Clause. View [42], Lara appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the Tribal Court obtained its authority from the ICRA, an act of Congress, and that both the Tribal Court and the Federal Court derived their power from the same sovereign. said it was outside her vagina on both occasions. 3d at 1081, 909 N.E.2d at 400. of Nat'l Assoc. Garcia-Cordova, 392 Ill. App. He did not recall much about the statement he signed at the station. Lara, 402 Ill. App. [82], These powers included the ability to both restrict tribal powers or to relax such restrictions. When he awoke, he could not stand straight. She pointed to her vagina. At the time of the offense, R.K. was 5 years old (born September 16, 2002) and defendant was 25 years old. The State only asked R.K. if defendant had touched her with anything beside his hand. For the reasons stated, we affirm defendants conviction.
When asked what she called the part to which she pointed, she said [bjottom body. R.K. testified it was on the front of her body and that defendant had touched her on that part of her body. Definition of Search Bond v. U.S. Steagald v. U.S. J.O. Refer to Figure 2. It reduced them to the lesser-included offenses of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and remanded for resentencing. our. About three days later, when she again slept on the floor next to Jason's bed, she got up during the night to use the bathroom. Defendant suggests R.K.s inability to pinpoint when the sex act occurred and certain inconsistencies rendered her statement unreliable. Sometime people mistakenly say that the body of a murder victim provides the corpus delicti of the crime of murder. Wha For your final project you will conduct an empirical evaluation of a particular setting with a focus upon a particular e . When asked by the State if defendant had touched her with any part of his body beside his hand, R.K. answered, No. However, a five-year-old child most likely would not equate oral sex with touching. Defendant was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl, at his mothers home for babysitting, on two dates. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. He could not make much sense of what the officers had tried to say to him. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the State need not present independent evidence corroborating every element of the charged offenses before a defendants statement may be used to prove the corpus delicti and that the independent evidence was sufficient to permit the defendants confession to be admitted. Case Brief 1.docx - Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 1977 The Parties: 5th Judicial District Court Polk County Iowa Defendant Robert Case Brief 1.docx - Brewer v. Williams 430 U.S. 387 1977 . were alone together. We affirm. Menominee Termination Act of 1954, June 17, 1954, 58, Menominee Restoration Act of 1973, December 22, 1973, 87, America is Indian Country: Opinions and Perspectives from Indian Country Today 90, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, "United States v Lara: Affirmation of Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction Over Nonmember American Indians. 's pants and touched her vagina. CITATION OF CASES DOES NOT INCLUDE . [76], Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court on April 19, 2004. In Garcia-Cordova, the question was whether the child was available for cross-examination during defendants trial. An attorney is not required to, and indeed should not, make an argument not well-grounded in fact or law. whether defendants request for a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of
grant of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds was a decision on the merits and precluded class decertification. [96] Kennedy states that is all that is needed to decide the case, but that the Court went further than was necessary when it decided that Congress had the power under the constitution to authorize tribes to prosecute non-member Indians. The following year, Congress passed a law that stated that Indian tribes, because of their inherent sovereignty, had the authority to try non-member Indians for crimes committed within the tribe's territorial jurisdiction. Lara Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Defendant was convicted of two counts of predatory criminal sexual assault on an eight-year-old girl, at his mother's home for babysitting, on two dates. He was assigned to investigate the allegations involving R.K. Glaub also testified he requested a physical exam of R.K. be performed. R.K. testified defendants hands touched her below her clothes. Defendant argues RK.s recorded statement contains inconsistencies, contradictions, and most of the detail in the interview came after *268prodding by Officer Luckey. aggravated criminal sexual abuse and remanded for resentencing. Subscribers are able to see the revised versions of legislation with amendments. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. 720 ILCS 5/12 14.1(a)(1) (West 2006). On February 17, 2005, Cordero and Augustina went out for a few drinks after Augustina got off work. aggravated criminal sexual abuse had been improperly denied and, if it was not required,
Following Officer Luckeys testimony, the State rested. reducing them to the lesser-included offense of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and remanding the cause for resentencing. said Jason had touched her inappropriately. She testified defendant had to leave her house between 5:30 and 6 a.m. to get to work. what is a case briefing of Illinois v. Lara The case brief should contain the following elements, -Case citation -Facts of the case -Procedural History -Issue (s) -Rule (s)/Holding (s) -Rationale Bookmarked 0 CRIM 211 M02 Discussion.docx Viewing now Bookmark it to view later. The judge admonished the venire about the principles that the jurors must presume the defendant's innocence, the State must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant has no duty to present any evidence, and the jurors must not hold against the defendant his exercise of his right not to testify. 's out-of-court statements. May 1, 2007). create a case brief of Illinois v. Lara (Ill. App. 322. 30, 2011) (nonprecedential supervisory order on denial of petition for leave to appeal)) directing this court to vacate our prior . Because the court found the child did not testify at trial and defendant had no prior opportunity for cross-examination, our supreme court held admission of the videotaped statement violated defendants right to confront his accuser. See Ill.S.Ct. made to Augustina, Cordero and Kato.
[408 Ill.App.3d 734] On February 11, 2005, Jason told Cordero that once, when Phillip A. came to visit, Jason heard sounds of licking and sucking coming from a room where Phillip A. and J.O. Other related materials Criminal Law Week 4 Briefs.docx 3 notes Defendant points out this court recently interpreted section 115 10 of the Code (725 ILCS 5/115 10 (West 2006)) to allow for the introduction of prior out-of-court statements when a witness takes the stand and answers no meaningful question on cross-examination. School Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis Course Title CRIM 211 Uploaded By BailiffPorpoise1040 Pages 1 After several incidents of serious misconduct, the Spirit Lake Tribe issued an order excluding him from the reservation. View 's answers. Defendant argued the child was unavailable for cross-examination regarding her statements to the DCFS investigator because defendant would have been forced to first elicit the damaging testimony from [the child] and then attempt to refute it. Garcia-Cordova, 392 Ill. App. [fn 2], Originally, crimes committed by Indians against Indians were not subject to federal or state jurisdiction, but were handled by tribal law.