Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Ohio 2005 Case of Bradshaw v Stumpf Paper Please see the below attached for more information and follow them carefully. • •

Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Ohio 2005 Case of Bradshaw v Stumpf Paper Please see the below attached for more information and follow them carefully. •
•
•
•
Please no plagiarism
APA format
Follow the requirements carefully
I will add the rubric that you need to follow
Question 1 (30 points)
In Ohio, in the case of Bradshaw v. Stumpf (2005), Stumpf was involved in a robbery and aggravated
murder with another accomplice. Stumpf admitted to shooting one individual but maintained that his
accomplice had shot the other victim who died. He eventually plead guilty and was sentenced to death
for the murder. In the trial of his accomplice, however, the state provided evidence that the accomplice
admitted to the shooting death. Stumpf filed an appeal to remove his plea based on evidence presented
at his accomplice’s trial. The Ohio court denied his appeal. A federal district court denied it as well.
However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the
case and had to decide whether Stumpf’s conviction was valid because the prosecution used evidence
that was inconsistent in the trials of Stumpf and his accomplice. In a 9-0 decision, the Court held that
Stumpf’s plea was valid because his attorney had explained to him the charges and he entered into the
plea agreement knowingly. The Court did say that they felt the death sentence may be in error because
of the prosecutor’s conduct. They sent the case back down to the Sixth Circuit to re-sentence Stumpf.
a) Analyze whether plea bargaining is appropriate when there are multiple defendants on trial (1
paragraph);
b) Discuss whether the government should have to determine who is responsible for which
offenses before they can attempt to elicit a plea deal (1 paragraph); and
c) Discuss whether plea-bargaining should be banned and Why. Be specific. Please be clear with
your position and make sure to fully reason the “whys” (1-2 paragraphs).
Question 2 (20 points)
The Speedy Trial Act ensures that (alleged) criminals are brought to justice promptly. It sets out
provisions for the number of days within which a suspect must be charged, the time frame within which
the initial appearance should take place, and how long before a trial should begin. In the case of Klopfer
v. North Carolina (1967), the defendant was charged with criminal trespass and his case resulted in a
mistrial. Instead of re-trying the case, the government stated in the court record a motion of nolle prosequi with leave, not specifying whether or when they intended to decide about prosecuting the case.
Klopfer appealed this decision, and the U.S. Supreme Court eventually weighed in stating that it was
unconstitutional to indefinitely postpone Klopfer’s trial without providing an adequate reason for doing
so. In other words, this type of delay violated the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and would
jeopardize the credibility to witness testimony, and the fairness of the trial due to pre-trial publicity.
Respond to the following:
a) Explain the importance of a speedy trial and trial process and why the protection of the same
may be (personally) important to a criminal defendant (1 paragraph); and
b) Discuss whether the government should be able to re-try someone after they have already
failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a previous trial (1 paragraph).
Question 3 (30 points)
Bench trials and jury trials were a topic in your text during the most recent module. Please respond to
the following, using what you have learned from your studies:
a) Explain the difference between a bench trial and a jury trial (1 paragraph);
b) Discuss whether there is evidence to indicate that a defendant is better off having a bench
trial
as opposed to a jury trial (1 paragraph); and
c) Analyze whether all those accused of a crime should have the right to a jury trial, under the
Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1 paragraph).
Question 4 (20 points)
VIRTUAL PRESENTATION
Please review this clip: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mandatory-minimum-sentencing-injusticeserved/. Since Lee Wollard’s sentencing, the Florida Supreme Court has repudiated mandatory minimum
sentences for the crime(s) he was convicted of. This repudiation doesn’t apply retroactively. Therefore,
Lee was not released as a result. Organize a 5-minute oral presentation in which you:
a) Discuss at least 3 of the 5 most commonly articulated philosophies/goals of sentencing; and
b) Argue for or against repudiation (changes in previous law) applying retroactively in Lee’s case
or others. Be sure to clearly explain your reasoning and offer other examples that may benefit from your
position/reasoning.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment