InstructionsFor this milestone, you will analyze two more case study scenarios and provide your insights into how each case should be handled.To complete this assignment, review the Milestone Two Guid

JUS 375 Milestone Two Guidelines and Rubric Prompt: For this milestone, you will analyze two more case study scenarios and provide your insights into how each case should be han dled. The scenarios will also be addressed as Sections I and V of your final project. Read the scenarios and then provide a short analysis based on the questions that follow. Miranda A uniformed police officer is dispatched to a bank robbery. Upon arrival, John Smith is already under arrest by the detective s for committing the robbery and shooting the guard. He is placed in the back of the officer’s cruiser. During the drive back to the station, Smith yells out, “I am so sorry I shot him!” One month later, the officer is called to testify about Smith’s statement. Smith’s defense attorney argues that the officer failed to read him his Miranda rights. Consider if his statements are admissible given the fact he was not read his Miranda Rights prior to making them. A. Imagine yourself as the judge presiding over this case. Clearly and accurately evaluate the constitutional parameters that emerged from the Miranda decision. How has this case influenced the practice of law enforcement? B. Describe your ruling for the bank robbery case, citing the Miranda case. How did Miranda influence your decision‐making process? Hinckley On March 30, 19 81, John Hinckley attempted to kill President Reagan. There were several witnesses to the shooting, and the evidence was overwhelming. Research this case and imagine yourself as Hinckley’s defense attorney. A. Apply the Model Penal Code test to this case to determine Hinckley’s mental state defense and what the jury’s verdict would have to be. Be sure to defend your response. B. After the Hinckley verdict was reached, many states opted for a new test to be utilized. The Insanity Defense Reform Ac t of 1984 shifted the burden of proof from prosecution to defense. Apply the present statutory test to the case. How do you believe the jury would vote if Hinckley were tried today? Why? C. What historical milestone case involving the Second Amendment emerge d from the events of this situation? How has this case impacted the criminal justice practitioner? Guidelines for Submission: Your paper must be about two to three pages long and must use double spacing, 12‐point Times New Roman font, and one‐inch margins . Include appropriate scholarly sources to support your ideas. In‐text citations and the reference list should be formatted a ccording to APA style. Rubric Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value Miranda:

Constitutional Parameters Meets “Proficient” criteria and cites specific, relevant examples to establish a robust context of evaluation Clearly and accurately evaluates the constitutional parameters that emerged from the Miranda decision and explains how this influenced the practice of law enforcement Evaluates the constitutional parameters that emerged from the Miranda decision and explai ns how this influenced law enforcement, but evaluation is vague or inaccurate Does not evaluate the constitutional parameters that emerged from the Miranda case or explain how this influenced the constitutional acts of law enforcement 18 Miranda: Ruling Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry‐specific language to establish expertise Describes ruling, citing the Miranda case, and how the case influenced decision‐making process Describes ruling, citing the Miranda case, but does not describe how the case influenced decision‐making process Does not describe ruling 18 Hinckley: Model Penal Code Test Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses concrete evidence to substantiate claims Accurately applies the Model Penal Code test to the case to determine the verdict and defends response Applies the Model Penal Code test to the case to determine the verdict, but application is inaccurate or does not defend response Does not apply the Mode l Penal Code test to the case to determine the verdict 18 Hinckley: Burden of Proof Meets “Proficient” criteria, and determination is well supported and plausible Accurately applies the present statutory test to the case to determine the jury’s verdict and justifies response Applies the present statutory test to the case to determine the jury’s verdict, but application is inaccurate or does not justify response Does not apply the present statutory test to the case to determine the jury’s verdict 18 Hinckley: Historical Milestone Case Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry‐specific language to establish expertise Identifies the historical milestone case involving the Second Amendment that emerged from the events of the Hinckley case and determines how the case impacted the criminal justice practitioner Identifies the historical milestone case involving the Second Amendment that emerged from the events of the Hinckley case but does not determine how the case impacted the criminal justice practitioner Does not identify the historical milestone case involving the Second Amendment th at emerged from the events of the Hinckley case 18 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy to read format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas 10 Earned Total 100%