Appellate brief - Admission/Application Essay Example

The fact is that the vehicle was hired and the purpose for hiring that vehicle had not yet been fulfilled. Often, the scene in which the vehicle should operate is limited to the time when it is still at the park yard. Once a person hired the vehicle and has the document, then the destination cannot be limited. It should be allowed to serve the purpose, since it was on a private mission. The case became complex, when the fingerprints of Litchfield were found on one of the seized packages of marijuana (Vol.

5, Transcript of Hearing 3-22-93, page 14, lines 1–25; page 15, lines 1–17). The implication was that he could not escape the evidence. Therefore, what remained was only to face justice and seek self defend against the case. In essence, the fingerprints presence on the marijuana could not be a sign that they belonged to him. Actually, Litchfield indicated that his fingers could have landed on the package by mistake, and he had no connection to the items (Ibid., p. 66, lines 14–17; p. 67, lines 4–8).

Litchfield might not have any knowledge of the availability of the marijuana when his hands landed on the item. Therefore, the law cannot be applied on assumption that the fingers prints suggest that the suspect had connection with the ownership of the items. Legally, the availability of the fingerprints on the object should not be used to show an intent or possession of the item. Often, there is a possibility that one can touch an object without the knowledge of the content, especially, when the object is wrapped.

Therefore, the coincidence under which the appellant touched the object does not show any relationship with the act of possession, and convicting Litchfield on the context of the fingerprints do not prove the reality of ownership. Perhaps, the presence of the package was a trap that his enemy had set, in the absence of his knowledge. Furthermore, there was no witness to give evidence that he was actually the owner of the packaged marijuana. Therefore, the decision to convict him should be declared none-prosecution and the convict set free.

Of course, the case was more that a double jeopardy for the defendants. First, his vehicle was unlawfully seized his car, his personality and unauthorized search of the car. Secondly, he was fined for possessing more than eight ounces of marijuana with intent to sell, 18-18-106(6). The penalty of $2,400,000 that the department of revenue imposed on the offender, to cater for tax evasion in the illegal trade could not be realized from the sales of marijuana. Finally, he was convicted of a criminal case and sentenced for five years in prison, or Department of Corrections (Case No.

93 CA 1278; p. 14, line 5-7). In reality, the law should not be partial and its application should not infringe on the basic human rights. In fact, the punishment for the same offence was executed twice, which is not fair in the application of law. The offence was either punishable by fine, or imprisonment, not both. Therefore, it raises the question of unresolved administrative practices in Colorado and unconstitutional application of law in the country. Considering the constitutional amendments that made, Amendment V, of the United States Constitution states that “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” (Colorado Statute 39-28.7-108). This is a sign that the court defied the constitutional