Hi, need to submit a 500 words essay on the topic Love brief a case.The duo purchased recording equipment and recorded conversations with officials with a view to proving harassment and spoke of filin

Hi, need to submit a 500 words essay on the topic Love brief a case.

The duo purchased recording equipment and recorded conversations with officials with a view to proving harassment and spoke of filing a law suit. It was the constant encounters with the authorities that ultimately gave way to a plan to kill certain officials. After Green informed the detective of his suspicions, he agreed to wear recording equipment in conversations with the appellant. Thereafter, Green turned over a recorded conversation he had with the appellant in which the plans were discussed. The threat was deemed serious and the FBI were brought in. Thereafter the appellant and his girlfriend were under surveillance. Identified victims were informed and some relocated out of fear. Subsequent conversations between Green and the appellant were recorded and the appellant and his girlfriend began purchasing equipment and making plans in furtherance of the plan. As the appellant and his girlfriend at a store purchasing the last of the equipment they were arrested. The appellant gave his consent to a search of his home and shop in which equipment for making a bomb was discovered. Other equipment was discovered at the appellant’s shop. Although the appellant’s Miranda rights were read to him, he waived the right to remain silent and offered various explanations for the equipment found in his possession.

Legal Issues: The appellant raised several issues on appeal. The evidential grounds related to a complaint that the was not enough evidence to convict him on the RICO charge. The appellant also argued that prior bad acts were improperly admitted into evidence and that allowing victim impact evidence deprived him of his right to a fair trial.

Legal Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Ohio reasoned that victim impact evidence was properly admitted by the trial judge because it demonstrated the seriousness of the offences. The court also reasoned that the appellant’s claim of insufficient evidence on the RICO count was without