1. Facts of the case: The case that I’m doing is Bobby vs. Bies, this is a very hard case for me because it has to do with the murder, kidnapping, and rape of a ten year old boy, this happened in 1992. Aaron Raines was found dead in the basement of a Cincinnati building. His autopsy suggested he had been severely beaten with a piece of concrete and a metal pipe, strangled with twine and kicked. Bies eventually admitted involvement and was convicted for Aaron's murder. Michael Bies was convicted to a death sentence in Supreme Court of Ohio in October 13, 1992. Michael Bies appealed his sentenced and argued that he was mentally retarded and this fact should mitigate his sentence. Among several clams for relief, Petitioner argued that the mentally retarded are protected by the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment because a national consensus against executing the mentally retarded reflects the standard of decency in the united stated. Since the court had indicated that he was mentally retarded, and re-litigating the issue would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

2. Issue of the case: The case is before the court because Michael Bies murdered, kidnapped, and raped Aaron Raines. During the penalty phase of the trial, Bies presented the testimony of a clinical psychologist as mitigating evidence. The psychologist Doctor Dona Winter testified that Bies IQ of 69 that placed him in the range of being "mildly to borderline mentally retarded." She also testified that she believed Bies knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of Aaron's murder. Bies was sentenced to death. Petitioner appealed both his conviction and his death sentence to the Ohio Court of Appeals. Michael Bies appealed the court, the district court agreed and granted Mr. Bies' petition for habeas corpus relief and ordered that he be resentenced. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he was mentally retarded, and that this mental retardation was a mitigation factor which should permit him to receive a sentence other than death. In response to these arguments, the government questioned Petitioner’s assertion that Petitioner does not suffer from mental retardation.

3. Decision of the court – how was the case decided, including an analysis of any concurring or dissenting opinions in previous case precedent Both courts affirmed his conviction and sentence, but agreed that he was mentally retarded. While Mr. Bies proceeded with his post-conviction appeals, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the precedent of Atkins v Virginia stating that "death is not a suitable punishment for mentally retarded people." He subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in an Ohio federal district court relying on Atkins. In response, the state claimed that Mr. Bies was not mentally retarded. Mr. Bies argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the state from relitigating the fact of his mental retardation. The Double Jeopardy clause comes into play only if a person is "for the same offence ... twice same crime on the same set of facts. At common law a defendant may plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (a peremptory plea), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offense.[1] If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding “Definition by Wikipedia.”A lot of the arguments they had was that Bies has only been tried for murder once.

4. Reasoning of the court -- analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges I believe this was is a very hard case for the judges especially because the precedent was established ten year after Bies committed the crime. The jury recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. Ohio’s Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, each concluding that Bies’ mental retardation was entitled to “some weight” as a mitigating factor, but that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Bies then filed an unsuccessful petition for state post conviction relief, contending for the first time that the Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of a mentally retarded defendant. Soon after Bies sought federal habeas relief, this Court decided Atkins. The opinion left to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to determine when a person claiming mental retardation would fall within Atkins’ compass. Ohio heeded Atkins ‘call in State v. Lott. The District Court then stayed Bies’ federal habeas proceedings so that he could present an Atkins claim to the state post conviction court. Observing that Bies’ mental retardation had not previously been established under the Atkins-Lott framework, the state court denied Bies’ motion for summary judgment and ordered a full hearing on the Atkins claim. Rather than proceeding with that hearing, Bies returned to federal court, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the State from relit gating the mental retardation issue. The District Court granted the habeas petition, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Relying on Ashe v. Swenson, the Court of Appeals determined that all requirements for the issue preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause were met in Bies’ case. It concluded, inter alia, that the Ohio Supreme Court, on direct appeal, had decided the mental retardation issue under the same standard that court later adopted in Lott, and that the state court’s recognition of Bies’ mental state had been necessary to the death penalty judgment. When the Sixth Circuit denied the State’s petition for rehearing en banc, a concurring judge offered an alternative basis for decision.

5. Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established. The main precedents of this case was the Penry that made Bies get a life sentence, Atkins vs. Virginia were it prohibits the conviction of a retarded person to the death sentence because of the Eight Amendment. The Double Jeopardy clause also helped Bies because he didn’t commit the same crime twice, it was three different crimes so he got lucky he didn’t rape, killed, or murdered the ten year old boy twice.

6. Your own argument. Did you agree or disagree with the ruling. Provide some authority for your argument. In this ruling I have to disagree on how everything when down. There was a lot of things I didn’t like or didn’t really make sense to me, for example I didn’t like that fact that a rapes, murder, and killer of a ten year old boy has to go through a mental evaluation to know that his not mentally fit, they almost make it seem it’s an everyday thing that someone goes and rapes, kills, and murders someone. I mean it should be a bias that there is something mentally wrong with this individual no one in their right mind would be able to do such a thing, I think it’s an insult to the retarded people that they can categorize Bies with them. There are so many retarded people or I must say handicap or with a low IQ that would not be able to do such a thing, and plus at the time of crime Bies knew the difference of right and wrong and still was they still made excuses for him. I could understand if he did not know the difference of right and wrong but that was not his problem. I really don’t know how I feel about the death sentence, I don’t know if I agree with it or disagree with it as a punishment. I just didn’t like the rout that this case toke, it just seems it toke a whole new direction once they knew his IQ was 69, I don’t understand why they didn’t take to consideration that the doctor said that he did know the difference between right and wrong.

7. Dissent – if the case wasn’t decided 9-0, what did the justices who ruled against the majority?
think about their case? Under Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, jeopardy attaches once a capital defendant is “acquitted” based on findings establishing an entitlement to a life sentence; reasoning that the Ohio courts’ mental retardation findings entitled Bies to a life sentence, he concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred any renewed inquiry into Bies’ mental state.

Issue of the case

Issue of the case: The case is before the court because Michael Bies murdered, kidnapped, and raped Aaron Raines.  During the penalty phase of the trial, Bies presented the testimony of a clinical psychologist as mitigating evidence.  The psychologist testified that Bies IQ placed him in the range of being "mildly to borderline mentally retarded."  She also testified that she believed Bies knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of Aaron's murder.  Bies was sentenced to death. Michael Bies appealed the court, the district court agreed and granted Mr. Bies' petition for habeas corpus relief and ordered that he be resentenced.

Facts of the case

Facts of the case: The case that I’m doing is Bobby vs Bies, this is a very hard case for me because it has to do with the murder, kidnapping, and rape of a ten year old boy, this happened in 1992. Aaron Raines was found dead in the basement of a Cincinnati building.  His autopsy suggested he had been severely beaten with a piece of concrete and a metal pipe, strangled with twine and kicked.  Bies eventually admitted involvement and was convicted for Aaron's murder.  Michael Bies was convicted to a death sentence in supreme court of Ohio.  Michael Bies appealed his sentenced and argued that he was mentally retarded and this fact should mitigate his sentence.

spam mail

What do I think about spam? I think that anything that is abuse in any way is bad. If there would be a type of control it would be okay, but spam has been abused so much that it affects the greatness of the internet. My main email is from yahoo and I get more spam than actual emails for myself, it takes me longer to erase all my junk mail than to go over my mail. I understand that it’s a good way to advertise specially because it’s free, but its flooding the internet with a lot of unwanted information. I really would not mine getting spam once a week from the same company, but I get the same spam everyday more than once. I never open them I’m not interested in what their trying to sell me and if I do want to buy something my spam would be the last place I would look. When I want to buy something the first thing I do is to google what I want and get the closes store to me or I go to the web and whatever catches my attention is what I get. 

What are the landlords rights

What are the landlord’s rights? Unfortunately the landlords don’t have that many rights and depending in the state you’re in the laws is different but there are usually all about the tenant. My father was the owner of some apartment couple years ago, one of the tenants that were there didn’t pay rent for about eight months because they knew how to beat the system and free lode. The first couple of months when by and the tenants were not making their monthly payment so my father when and got an eviction notice, the tenants had a couple of days to move out instead of moving out the tenant when to court and put a complaint against my father saying that the reason that they didn’t pay their rent was because there was insects in the apartment which it wasn’t true. It is against the law to have an apartment in that type of conditions so he got away with it. My father had to pay to have the apartment spayed down while the tenant got away from paying any rent, they did this the hole time they were there. Mean while my father would show up to the apartment to see if he could get paid and couple of the times that he when the tenants were doing drugs so my father called the cops to let them know that not only they won’t paying rent but they were doing drugs in the apartment. Little did my father knew that the cops couldn’t do anything about it they just advice him to take them to court. For the entire eight months my father had to go to court on an off and he did not get not one monthly payment. I think it’s so unfair that how there are people that know how to beat the system and the law allows this and they could go months with not paying anything.  

What my classmates think of the legal system

In today’s blog we have to pick three blogs from our classmates and comment on their blog and the quotes that they used from the book business law.  The three people that I picked were Gustavo Ibarra, Raymond George Price, and Jonathan Boyer. Raymond Price quoted on his blog that   

“No one person can possibly know the entire body of law.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg 3). I think this is very true, I agree with Raymond’s point of view we do have one of the best systems in the world. Nothing is ever going to be perfect but over all this is okay and we have some type of control. The law does seem to have a lot of ways to defeat the law and there are a lot of loop holes that can be overcome, it really depends on the type of attorney and money you have.

"The federal agency responsible for the safety of food and drugs sold in the United States is the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA requires that all drugs sold be thoroughly tested to ensure that they are both safe and effective." (Essentials of Business Law, A. Liuzzo, page 473 I think Jonathan has a point on that it is up to the individual if they do drugs and how much of it they do. Were I do have to disagree is that all drugs should be legal there are to many drugs that are so power full and can destroy so many lives. Also if those drugs are legal people are going to thing that they are legal for a reason and can be used and have no type of effects on them, specially the younger ones.  I would hate and be worried to know that my daughter would have an easier access to those type of drugs, it just does feel right.
“The number of crimes that involve business continue to grow as changes in business practices and technology offer new opportunities for wrongdoers to benefit from illegal or questionable activities” 

I agree to a certain expend with Gustavo Ibarra some laws are just to twisted and there are too many exceptions to one law and ways you can get around It, that lawyers take such a big part on how things can go down on a case, and the jury some of those people are uneducated to be deciding on some ones case. 

Greed is good?

Greed is good? Is what a lot of people think, in the movie it talks about how greed is good and how Geako doesn’t care about anyone but himself. He doesn’t care if he screws his business partner or all the employees and their families just for him to have more money, money that he will never probably see or spend. It’s sad to know that there are so many people that have nothing to eat or even no were to stay, well other people are giving away trillions and billions of dollars for bonuses a year. I hate greed, I wish there wasn’t any greed and that people will get paid an how hard they work or because their great business people. I don’t understand why people want so much money and they will do anything to get it. It doesn’t matter who they screw over as long as they get it. I’ve notice that money that you get from geed or bad money never sticks around for long one way or another it will go away because people get confident and think that they will always be able to get it. I have learned that money is not everything that there are more important things to life than having a lot of money or screwing people over, like having a great family that stands by you no matter what you do, having a husband that loves you and respects you, or having beautiful kids that brighten your day every time you see them or think about them.
The person that I would have to pick to be made as one of the dolls is probably my older sister because she really can get on my nerves, so every time that she get on my nerves I can smack the doll. That will make me feel just a little better.