Redirect, Your Honor?

In accrodance with Furman v. Georgia once the Defendant is convicted, a seperate Trial must take place in order to determine whether or not the accused deserves the Death Penalty.

Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The Court consolidated Jackson v. Georgia and Branch v. Texas with the Furman decision, and thus also invalidated the death penalty for rape. The court had also intended to include the case of Aikens v. California, but between the time Aikens had been heard in oral argument and a decision was to be issued, the Supreme Court of California decided in California v. Anderson that the death penalty violated the state constitution, thus the Aikens case was dismissed as moot since all death cases in California were overturned.

In the Furman case, the victim returned to his house while William Henry Furman was burgling it. At trial, Furman testified that while trying to escape, he tripped and the weapon he was carrying fired accidentally. One of the homeowners was shot and killed. Furman was tried for murder and was found guilty based largely on his own testimony. He was sentenced to death.

The Supreme Court split five to four in overturning the imposition of the death penalty in each of the consolidated cases. The majority could not agree as to a rationale and did not produce an opinion, but merely a short statement announcing the result.

Justice Potter Stewart, as one of the majority, wrote that "These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed. My concurring Brothers have demonstrated that, if any basis can be discerned for the selection of these few to be sentenced to death, it is the constitutionally impermissible basis of race. See McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184 (1964) But racial discrimination has not been proved, and I put it to one side. I simply conclude that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments cannot tolerate the infliction of a sentence of death under legal systems that permit this unique penalty to be so wantonly and so freakishly imposed."

Justices Byron White and William O. Douglas expressed similar concerns about the apparent arbitrariness with which death sentences were imposed under the existing laws. Justices Brennan and Marshall concurred on the grounds that the death penalty was "cruel and unusual punishment" proscribed by the Eighth Amendment as incompatible with the evolving standards of decency of a contemporary society.

Chief Justice Burger and Justices Harry Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, and William H. Rehnquist, each appointed by Richard Nixon, dissented. They argued that capital punishment had always been regarded as appropriate under the Anglo-American legal tradition for serious crimes and that the text of the Constitution implicitly authorized United States death penalty laws because of the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to the taking of "life."

In the following four years, 37 states enacted new death penalty laws aimed at overcoming the court's concerns about arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. Several statutes mandating bifurcated trials, with separate guilt-innocence and sentencing phases, and imposing standards to guide the discretion of juries and judges in imposing capital sentences, were upheld in a series of Supreme Court decisions in 1976, led by Gregg v. Georgia. Other statutes enacted in response to Furman which mandated imposition of the death penalty upon conviction of certain crimes were struck down in cases of that same year.

That's what a J.D. can do for you.

---

I'm with Tails. I don't get the proclivity of the belief in this fandom that every murderer gets the death penalty.

---

Would Godot even go to trial?
He confessed in open court, and keep in mind, before that, he could have let Maya AND Iris get off, without ever casting suspicion on himself, he kept going to test Phoenix, at the cost of his discovery. It seems to me, he’d cut a plea deal with the prosecutor (I believe there IS a procedure for that, but my question above meant a full trial), he had very little left to do, and even Mia accused him (in a way).

---

Time for my Death Penalty knowledge to pay off.

In the United States, the principle of dual sovereignty applies to homicide, as to other crimes. If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the Federal Government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then Federal jurisdiction is exclusive: examples include the District of Columbia, naval or U.S.-flagged merchant vessels in international waters, or a U.S. military base. In cases where a murder involves both state and federal jurisdiction, the offender can be tried and punished separately for each crime without raising issues of double jeopardy.

Modern codifications tend to create a genus of offenses, known collectively as homicide, of which murder is the most serious species, followed by manslaughter which is less serious, and ending finally in justifiable homicide, which is not a crime at all. Because there are 51 jurisdictions, each with its own criminal code, this section treats only the crime of murder, and does not deal with state-by-state specifics.

At base, murder consists of an intentional unlawful act with a design to kill and fatal consequences. Generally, an intention to cause great bodily harm is considered indistinguishable from an intention to kill, as is an act so inherently dangerous that any reasonable person would realize the likelihood of fatality. Thus, if the defendant hurled the victim from a bridge, it is no defense to argue that harm was not contemplated, or that the defendant hoped only to break bones.

Murder is the killing of human being with malice prepense. Malice can be expressed (intent to kill) or implied. Implied malice is proven by acts that involve reckless indifference to human life or in a death that occurs during the commission of certain felonies (the felony murder rule). The exact terms of the felony murder vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Sentencing for murder in the United States has a mean of 349 months and a median of 480 months.


Degrees of murder in the United States
Before the famous case of Furman v. Georgia in 1972, most states distinguished two degrees of murder. While the rules differed by state, a reasonably common scheme was that of Pennsylvania, passed in 1794: "Murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree (or capital murder in some states that carry the death penalty); and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree." "Murder one", as the term was popularized by novels and television, carried a penalty of death, or life in prison, while the penalty for "murder two" was generally around 80 years in prison. After the Supreme Court placed new requirements on the imposition of the death penalty, most states adopted one of two schemes. In both, third degree murder became the catch-all, while first degree murder was split. The difference was whether some or all first degree murders should be eligible for the most serious penalty (generally death, but sometimes life in prison without the possibility of parole.).

The first scheme, used by Pennsylvania among other states:
First Degree Murder: A premeditated murder, and (in some states) murders involving certain especially dangerous felonies, such as arson or rape, or committed by an inmate serving a life sentence.
Second Degree Murder: Non pre-meditated killing.
Third Degree Murder: Any other murder.
The second scheme, used by New York among other states, as well as the Model Penal Code:
First Degree Murder: Murder involving special circumstances, such as murder of a police officer, judge, fireman or witness to a crime; multiple murders; and torture or especially heinous murders. Note that a "regular" premeditated murder, absent such special circumstances, is not a first-degree murder; murders by poison or "lying in wait" are not per se first-degree murders. First degree murder is pre-meditated. However, the New York Court of Appeals struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional in the case of People v. Taylor.

Second Degree Murder: Any premeditated murder or felony murder that does not involve special circumstances.

Some states, such as California, simply preserved the old distinction between two degrees and have no offense called third degree murder. They simply have "first-degree murder" (leading to life in prison with a possibility of parole) and "first-degree murder with special circumstances" (leading to death or life without the possibility of parole), while second-degree murder continues to be the default category (punished by life in prison with a shorter term until parole eligibility).

Other states use the term "capital murder" for those offenses that merit death, and the term is often used even in states whose statutes do not include the term. As of 2006, 38 states and the federal government have laws allowing capital punishment for certain murders and related crimes (such as treason, terrorism, and espionage). The penalty is rarely asked for and more rarely imposed, but it has generated tremendous public debate. See also capital punishment and capital punishment in the United States.

---

That's not your knowledge of the death penalty, that's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on murder.

True. You expect me to type that much? The DP is hard to type up. Wiki seemed easier. Plus I didn't want to got to my study and pull a bunch of law books out.

Anyway, Godot confessed under severe duress, which is enough to get it tossed out in most Courts. (Mississippi being the exception)

---

Fixed

Anyways, who's to say he didn't write that Wikipedia article himself!

---

Hey, I'm not a DP prosecutor. But I can think of a few cases that would keep the DP from being used in the PW Legal System

Of course, the entire P.W. legal system does piss me off.

---

I hear that, 3 day trials would solve quite a bit of problems with out court system, but create so much more (setting aside EVERYTHING ELSE that's wrong with PW court systems [Only the Prosecution calls Witnesses, even if they're witnesses for the defense WTF?])

For another thing, my "maybe he wrote the Wiki article" argument would have worked unless the defense could present directly contradicting evidence.

But really the Death penalty seems to only be a plot device, it's really safe to say that unless the go out of their way to call him dead, Godot was simply put on a bus.

---

No, it would solve nothing. Trust me.

Trial Attorneys have enough to deal with. A time limit would destroy the American Justice System.

---

I'm sorry, I'm mistaken it would solve one thing, “quite a bit” was a needless overstatement.
I believe that as things stand right now, people are being denied their right to a speedy trial, and as a result are being denied their liberty or property without any real due process between their arrest, and their real trial. Now, I am willing to concede that the circumstances that cause this are better for our justice system in the end, but it is still a problem.
Let’s not (continue to) thread jack shall we? It was my fault in the first place, there’s no point in arguing when we both agree that things are better without a three day limit.

---

Heh, I remember what TV Tropes says about Phoenix Wright:

Well, according the NSW Criminal Act 1900, it states the following for murder which is what Godot will be convicted on...

(1)

(a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter.

(2)

(a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section.

(b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only.

Technically, Godot did kill out of malice and revenge because of Dahlia (which Misty was being a vessel for her). So life imprisonment is a more likely candidate than the death penalty.

Off topic, I sure hope this has been updated since 1900.

---

Still off topic: Well, we're still using this Act but it has been updated a lot since the ages but the original clauses such as murder and manslaughter hasn't changed too much since then.

Proof of PW insanity

Brady v. Maryland.

look it up. You will laugh,

---

*creepy english, me sorry...*
Nooooooooo... That's not what happened...

After being proved guilty of killing Ms. Fey, Mr. Armando gets a second trial about his sentence. A certain Attorney proves that Diego killed a live to save another. He doesn't get a Death Sentence, but has to go in prison for a while (don't forget, "Tempering with a crime scene"...).

While in prison, he starts writing a best-seller novel called "Red Coffee". :3 His mask-device changes for a pair of cool red-shades due to the fact that the poison is degrading slowly in his nervous system. His hair gradualy darken too. :)

He his release for being a Good Boy in prison! :3

Wright has some business to attempt elsewhere, so it's Armando Diego that helps Apollo Justice during his trials.

My point is : GODOT CAN'T DIE!!! HE'S SURELY ONE OF THE GREATEST CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE SERIES!!! IT WOULD BE STUPID TO SEE HIM IN ONLY ONE GAME!!!


Ahem. The prossecution rests, your honor.

Hope they won't give him red ink to write with
Unless he finds white cocoons like a quick antidote too

---

didn't seem to care that he was going to get whatever type of sentence they give him

(added spoiler tags)

---

- Phoenix visiting Diego -

Phoenix Wright : So Armando, what have you been up to lately?
Diego : Prison is boring.... So I started writing a Book, a "Special" Book!
Phoenix Wright : What's so special about it?
Diego : Look! *shows pages* It's written... WITH INVISIBLE INK!!!!!!
Phoenix : *snort*

Gumshoe: ...
Gumshoe: It's only a tomato ketchup.

---

"If a defendant intends to kill a specific victim and instead wounds an unintended victim without killing either, the defendant can be convicted only of the attempted murder of the intended victim, and transferred intent does not apply."

The trial judge also seemed about as competent as a certain white-bearded spoony bard...

---