Compare and Contrast Essay on Cameroon and Stokeling Cases

Robbery involves a crime of attempting or taking belongings of someone else by force, by inducing fear, or threat of force. The law that defines the sentence of armed robbery is contained in the Criminal Career Act, and it has also based on past cases. The pretrial activities, the comparisons and the differences in the case processing and outcome of each case are discussed. The disparities in the criminal case and its reflection on the two cases are also addressed together with my reactions and the changes in my perspectives concerning the comparison and contrasting made on the cases.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In courtroom 302, chapter one was selected, which is titled the white sales on page 23 (Bogira 2006). The name of the defender was Tony Cameroon, who was charged for armed robbery. The event occurred in Chicago outside a currency exchange building where Cameroon entered a car of the defendant and claimed for money, which was 260 dollars by the victim. From the day he committed the crime till the day of the plea bargain, Tony Cameron has been in jail for five months in the Cook County Jail; he was sleeping division 2, which is of poor condition (Bogira 2006). Tony Cameroon has told his public prosecutor to help him go for trial, but the prosecutor denied telling him if he goes for trial he will serve a thirty years sentence.

On the day of the court hearing, they were dragged from their division 2 through a hallway where they were mishandled by the guards on their way to courtrooms. Through his attorney, he requested a conference to discuss his plea bargaining. A plea bargain was granted which started with a meeting to discuss the whole process of the deal, where Cameroon chooses to admit that he was guilty. The bargain involved several questions from the judge to ascertain the validity of the plea. After the plea bargain, the outcome of the appeal was a six-year sentence, as stated earlier by judge Locallo at the plea conference. Cameroon was taken to the Illinois River Correctional Center to serve his sentence (Bogira 2006). The key actors at the case were public defender Diana Bidawid, prosecutor Alesia, and Judge Locallo. What surprised most is the decision of the sentence as it was made without considering that Cameroon has mental problem and faces a lot of challenges at home.

The comparison case is Stokeling V.United States case in which the defendant by the name Denard Stokeling who pleaded guilty in the year 2016 for charges involving armed robbery where he used force to take the property of someone and had a firearm (Freeman, 2018). Hw was to be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Looking at his criminal history, Stokeling has committed other two robberies before the current robbery being convicted. From the first date of conviction to when a final trial was done at the Supreme Court, the case took about three years (Freeman, 2018). On April 6, 2017 a sentence vacation of the defendant was issued and remanded for resentencing. Then on August 4, 2017 the defendant filed a petition with Supreme Court, and later on April 2, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to be ready for the case hearing (Freeman, 2018). On October 9, 2018 oral argument took place at the Supreme Court, then on January 15, 2019 the Supreme Court affirmed the court`s ruling of the Eleventh Circuit and judgment was issued on February 19, 2019 where he was sentenced for a minimum 15 years (Freeman, 2018). The people involved in the case were Justice Thomas, Justice Sotomayor, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Kagan.

In comparison, the two cases involved the three parts of the criminal justice system. During the first detention of the defendants, the law enforcement agency which is police arrested the Cameroon and police also arrested Stokeling, both of them due to armed robbery. Then the second part followed, which is the court system, the accompanying prosecution in the court, and the lawyers or public defenders were involved in the two cases. While in the courts, the defendants were prosecuted, and they were being assisted by their lawyers or public defender like an example of Cameroon, who was with Diana Bidawid, who was a public defender (Bogira 2006).

Also, criminal justice actors are the same in both cases. The actors who were involved in the two cases at each stage of a criminal process are the same. In the initial appearance at the court, the prosecutor provides the details about the charges that the defender is being charged, because the cases involved a criminal act, the prosecutors in the two cases played role of representing the government in bringing the case to the court and provide evidence showing the accused is guilty. Then judges were involved in the case as there was the court judge who decides the case after hearing. There was a probation officer in the two trials included in the processing of reports about the defenders. Also, both the defenders were represented by defense lawyers who were assisting the defenders in analyzing any weakness in what the prosecutor presented as evidence to try in showing the defenders are not guilty or suggest for lighter sentences.

In contrast, the sequence of the processing of the case differs between the two cases. The difference in on the part of arraignment, trial, sentencing, and Appeals; as in Tony Cameroon`s case, the role of appearance involved a plea bargain which Cameroon himself through his public defender requested for a plea conference before the court hearing. The discussion included the plea bargain agreement as the judge had to ask the defendant if he was sure to take the plea without any influence whatsoever. But in the case of Stokeling V. United States, the arraignment part involved a trial as the defendant did not request for a plea bargain like Cameroon in the Courtroom 302. The trial was done first at the district court where Stokeling was found guilty, but he did not admit as he was holding that one of the first crime committed in Florida should not be included in the current detention and through that argument, the district court where the trial stated agreed with the defendant but the court of appeal reversed the district court judge decision and ordered for remand of the defendant for a resentencing (Freeman, 2018). Also, in Cameroon's case, the criminal case process ended at the arraignment period after plea bargain was accepted by the judge and sentence order of six years issued, while in Stokeling`s case, the criminal case process was long, and it went up to appeal stating from district court, then Eleventh Circuit court, and later Supreme court where the case was decided and sentence issued for fifteen years.

Also, there is a difference in the criminal procedures for the two cases. In the process of providing proof beyond a reasonable doubt as required in a criminal case, different methods were applied in the claims. In the case of Tony Cameroon, the procedure was easy as the defendant did not deny the accusation before the cook county court, and also he accepted the judges they referred to the previous case. However, the procedure in the Stokeling case was a bit complex as the defender denied the earlier crimes. On the part of reference to the written rule guiding a criminal law ruling, the first case involved fewer referrals as the defendant cooperated and pleaded guilty, but for the case of Stokeling many references on the Criminal Career Act were cited together concerning earlier cases ruling (Freeman, 2018). More so, various laws of cited including Florida law to build a base of deciding on the verdict of the case as the defendant was denying the use of some Acts in ruling his case.

The processing of the two cases reflects what we understand concerning traditional case processing. It incorporates all the criminal justice processing stages intended to protect and provide justice to every society member through the process of convicting the defender, punishment, and rehabilitation of the guilty defender (Freeman, 2018). The two cases stated with the investigation of the cases during the time it was reported, and then they were arrested after the police have collected abundant evidence of the case to assist the prosecutor with full evidence needed to bring justice by disciplining the defender well. Pretrial activities then follow where the defender is presented to court before a judge and that were exactly what happened to Cameroon and Stokeling case as they were taken before the judges at the respective courts. Still in the pretrial activities, a preliminary hearing follows, and after some time, which is stated by the judge, a plea bargain is arranged or a trial. Those basic criminal case steps were observed in the two cases.

The cases reflect known disparities drawn from the criminal case processing; there is scholarly literature that illustrates the sentencing guidelines for criminal laws that have variations that are seen in the two cases. The disparities in criminal cases are because of the differences in the pre-sentencing caused by pleading practices and prosecutors charging (Tiede, Carp, & Manning, 2010). The presence of confident defense attorneys in different courts also causes deviations in case processing. In the case of Tony Cameroon and Stokeling, the disparities of charges, sentencing, pretrial activities and how the defendants were treated generally was due to different judges, prosecutors, and public defenders or lawyers involved in the cases together with the various police officers involved in the investigation of the two cases. More so, others believe the disparities are caused by race, the offender's ethnicity, and the relationship with judges affect the sentence and how the defendant is treated (Tiede et al., 2010). This might have happened in Cameroon and Stokeling, causing the deviations we saw between the two cases. The way Cameroon was being treated in the court was different from how Stokeling was being treated. Also, a disparity can be as a result of the location of the court. Many believe the sentences offered by district court judges that are in Fifth Circuit are higher and sometimes depart from the outlined guidelines compared to what judges in Ninth Circuit offer(Tiede et al., 2010).

The two cases described initiated some reactions on my side about how criminal cases are dealt with. In Cameroon's case, the judge did not consider the mental problems suffered by the defendant; instead, he ruled like an average person (Bogira 2006). The decision does not seem fair to the defendant. In the Stokeling case, the decision made at the District Court at the fifth circuit seems weird as the crimes committed by the defendant were robbery, and the law clearly states how to rule such crimes.

The cases changed my perspective concerning the legal system and how the courts are ruling on specific criminal cases. Look at how the district court ordered the Stokeling court, and the judge accepted the defendant claims that the first crime he committed does not qualify to be charged under the Criminal Career Act, and the decision was vacated in the Eleventh Court Circuit. The question that arises is about the truth behind the legal system and the basis the judges rely on ruling a crime. The decision of the judges differs, and yet they have to refer to the same laws in making a ruling.