In the case of the People vs Smith case, the supreme court of Michigan made an error in a trail of double jeopardy. The defendant Smith was being charged with first-degree murder of a store owner named Richard Cumming and one of the employees Stephen Putman. The victims died of gunshots wounds the store had been robbed. The police discovered the victim's wallets missing and over $2000 in cash from the drops and registers in the store. Smith was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder with two counts of larceny armed robbery, and four counts of possession with a firearm. The problem with this case is that his juvenile records and audit records are misused. The presented investigation reports outlined Smith previous record which
…show more content…
Smith had confessed the crimes to he the defendant also told his wife that the police had no evidence to convict him of the crime. He threw the gun in the river so the authorities had no way of retrieving it. Without evidence, it is hard to charge someone with a crime because you need the weapon that was involved. The court did an analysis by comparing the felony murder conviction to the felony of armed robbery. The court appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence of the two crimes committed by Smith. The Supreme Court Double Jeopardy Clause of Michigan compared to the fifth amendment of the United States states “No person shall be charged twice for the same offense” (Mich.2005.). The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against successive prosecution offers three protection laws, it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same offense. The Double jeopardy clause also ensures that the defendant punishment will not exceed the punishment authorizes by the Legislature.Really all they could charge Smith with breaking and entering and taking items from the store. The records, in this case, contains no
Smith had confessed the crimes to he the defendant also told his wife that the police had no evidence to convict him of the crime. He threw the gun in the river so the authorities had no way of retrieving it. Without evidence, it is hard to charge someone with a crime because you need the weapon that was involved. The court did an analysis by comparing the felony murder conviction to the felony of armed robbery. The court appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence of the two crimes committed by Smith. The Supreme Court Double Jeopardy Clause of Michigan compared to the fifth amendment of the United States states “No person shall be charged twice for the same offense” (Mich.2005.). The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against successive prosecution offers three protection laws, it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and multiple punishments for the same offense. The Double jeopardy clause also ensures that the defendant punishment will not exceed the punishment authorizes by the Legislature.Really all they could charge Smith with breaking and entering and taking items from the store. The records, in this case, contains no