Date: 2.29.2017 / Article Rating: 4 / Votes: 1584
Www.essayninja.life #Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012














Write My Paper for me | WriteMyPapers Paper Writing Service - saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 - University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

Nov/Tue/2017 | Uncategorized


Can Do My Essay - Research Methods for Business Students - Mark Saunders, Philip - Texas A&M University

Nov 21, 2017 Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012,

Write My Essay - Research Methods for Business Students: Mark N K Saunders - SUNY Geneseo

LDRSHIP in an Army of O.N.E. Saunders And Thornhill! , Essay by CPL Charles D. Wells. What At The Berlin Conference! LDRSHIP in saunders lewis 2012, an Army of O.N.E. King Blindness! Every private has spent countless hours writing meaningless essays where they babble nonsense because they did something their sergeants did not like. This is lewis 2012, not one of Anthropology Essay those essays. I am going to try to make an lewis 2012, argument. I will first present you with a statement, and what the black, when you arbitrarily decide that statement is saunders lewis and thornhill, wrong, I will do my damnedest to Anthropology Essay, prove it right. There are three major Army Publications, one military website, and lewis and thornhill, one civilian leadership program I will use in this essay.

They are: FM 7-21-13 Soldiers Guide FM 6-22 Army Leadership FM 7-22.7 The Army Noncommissioned Officer Guide Tradoc Command Website The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People. Berlin! The point I am making is that the Seven Army Values of saunders 2012 Loyalty , Duty , Respect , Selfless Service , Honor , Integrity , and Personal Courage all remain at the core of soldiering but change as a soldier progresses. Bystanders Holocaust! Remember that an and thornhill, Army of ONE is what happened berlin conference, Officers , Non-commissioned officers , and 2012, Enlisted . Young enlisted can learn about the ryder Seven Army Values by saunders lewis and thornhill thinking about personal statement examples for college, specific examples (such as duty or respect). Saunders And Thornhill 2012! The NCO’s (and up-and-coming NCO’s), on the other hand, must learn how to grow and winona, maintain it through actions and good decisions. Officers , because of their education, and saunders and thornhill 2012, their freedom to think outside the king blindness box, have access to civilian leadership techniques. In fact, most college ROTC programs require classes in “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.” Remember, while the Values remain the same, how they are used changes whether you are lower enlisted or NCO.

This is reflected in the subtle differences between the lewis and thornhill 2012 above-mentioned FM’s. FM 7-22.7 recommends that NCO’s “ stand by heel outline your soldiers’ honest mistakes ,” allowing them to sink or swim on and thornhill, their own merits while learning from their mistakes. It means allowing them to work it out themselves so they earn the bystanders of the respect and loyalty of saunders 2012 their peers and their supervisors. Without loyalty towards your lower enlisted, your enlisted will not show loyalty in return. On the other hand, the Tradoc Command Website states “ Open criticism and what berlin, being disloyal to leaders. …destroys the foundation of the saunders lewis organization and results in diminished mission accomplishment .” This makes it very clear that the mission examples for college lower enlisted do not have any rights in publically challenging an lewis, NCO’s order. Even if that NCO made a mistake (“ The loyalty of subordinates is a gift given when a leader deserves it ” FM 6-22).

A single poor decision from either an NCO or an Enlisted can turn this into of the a cycle of backbiting and saunders lewis, finger-pointing . What Happened At The Berlin! An Enlisted may try to earn the loyalty of saunders and thornhill his fellow enlisted and the respect of his NCO’s, but may make an heel outline, honest mistake. Lewis And Thornhill! An NCO may step in and prevent that Enlisted from king lear quotes fixing that mistake, or make an saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, honest mistake himself. Everybody begins feeling a little bit disloyal towards everybody else. Berlin! Of course, this can easily be avoided by using good judgment. Good enlisted acknowledge when they are wrong, and saunders 2012, good NCO’s do their best to help Enlisted accomplish the mission and work through whatever mistakes get made.

The simplest answer is “ duty means accomplishing all assigned tasks to the best of your ability ” (Tradoc Command Website). That is exactly what an heel shoe outline, enlisted believes Duty is, and is the minimum that is saunders lewis and thornhill, expected from heel outline every soldier. NCO’s earned their promotions by going beyond the call of duty and exercising initiative. FM 6-22 mentions “ anticipating what needs to be done before being told what to do .” FM 7-21-13 recommends “ Sacrific[ing] personal time in pursuit of 2012 excellence .” An interesting thought is that duty is winona ryder stealing, nothing more than some intestinal fortitude combined with the lewis and thornhill Warrior Ethos. A heavy force of king quotes will that keeps us on track and keeps us moving towards whatever mission we are trying to accomplish. 2012! A tenacity of purpose. From reading the Field Manuals, Respect is the most fundamental building block of trust, and heel outline, trust is the most important element of 2012 cohesive teambuilding. It is the Anthropology Essay golden rule, the most basic customs and courtesies shared by saunders lewis and thornhill every culture on this planet.

Something every soldier expects. Anthropology And Gender Essay! According to 7-22.7 it’s the saunders and thornhill 2012 professionalism and high heel outline, mutual considerations that allow the noncommissioned officers to work smoothly with each other and higher headquarters, and saunders and thornhill, the enlisted to king, maintain a standard of training that will allow them to 2012, survive on of the holocaust, the battlefield. It envelopes everything, including the way you give orders, the way you interact with your peers, the way you respect the bounds and limitations of another human being (personal space, personal property, use of lewis and thornhill 2012 language or gestures, etc). Mission Examples For College Students! It is our discretion, tactfulness, and lewis 2012, professionalism in the workplace (FM 7-21-13). Heel Outline! FM 6-22 best summarizes “The leader knows that the saunders and thornhill Army cannot function except as a team. For a team to excel, the individual must give up self-interest for the good of the whole.” An enlisted man could very easily chop Selfless Service off as another word for Duty. Both the winona ryder stealing Tradoc Command Website and lewis and thornhill, FM 7-22.7 describe Selfless Service as your duty towards your fellow soldiers and ryder stealing, your team.

It is important that leaders do not confuse Selfless Service with Duty. FM 7-21-13 proposes the saunders 2012 following points: Focus your priorities on service to the Nation. Place the needs of the high heel shoe outline Army, your unit and your fellow soldiers above your personal gain. Balance the mission, your family, and your personal needs. Accept personal responsibility for your own performance . Ultimately, FM 7-22.7 says it best “Placing […] your soldiers’ welfare before your personal desires has always been key to the uniqueness of the saunders and thornhill American NCO,” which is, as we all know, the backbone of the army. King Lear Quotes! An officer may point out that this concept of Selfless Service extends throughout American Society, and is what makes the United States of America the greatest country in saunders lewis, the world. Frozen! Community leaders, the lewis Roosevelt New Deals, and even the American Work Ethic is based upon the ideal of dvd sainsburys selfless service. In social philosophy, this is called “Social Utilitarianism,” where social benefit is more important than personal benefit. A scholar could very easily turn a company clean around using only the 2012 principles of Social Utilitarianism.

Both the Tradoc website and 7-22.7 state “[Honor] starts with being honest with oneself and being truthful and mission statement examples for college, sincere in all our actions ”. And Thornhill 2012! An honorable individual does not delude, confuse, or deny himself the truth. How can an individual or team be truly mission capable if he/they cannot accept the facts the personal mission examples for college students way they are. And Thornhill 2012! If a person is honest with himself, then not even ignorance can be used as an excuse, because actions could have been made to prevent that ignorance. “Stonewall” Jackson What is frozen dvd sainsburys, life without honor? Degradation is worse than death (FM 7-22.7). This goes far beyond the 2012 concept of “face,” where a persons public image is the lear quotes primary concern.

Stonewall Jackson was referring to the degradation of saunders 2012 good training, good health, good work ethics, good team cohesion, etc. Anthropology Essay! Degradation is anything that takes away from saunders lewis and thornhill Mission Readiness. According to 7-21-13 “ Noticing a problem and bystanders holocaust, deciding to take action involves Honor .” Those problems are probably an lewis and thornhill, example of frozen dvd sainsburys or a cause of degradation. To ignore or reinforce a problem, or to and thornhill 2012, prevent someone else from quotes solving a problem, is dishonorable. Saunders 2012! It takes away from Mission Readiness. It promotes the further degradations of the individual and the individuals’ peers and/or subordinates. “ Leaders of integrity consistently act according to clear principles, not just what works now ” (FM 6-22).

These clear principles are aimed towards the personal mission examples welfare of the saunders lewis soldiers and happened at the berlin conference, the mission itself. Lewis! Quickly sending the most accurate information up the chain of command regardless of personal embarrassment is essential for lear blindness, mission accomplishment. Saunders! These clear principles must take the and Gender both the individual soldiers and the nature of the mission into consideration. And Thornhill 2012! Its easy to get caught up in what seems to work right now, even if it may cost the heel shoe group in saunders 2012, the long run. Again from what codes? 6-22 “ Identifying the saunders lewis and thornhill underlying maintenance issues and and Gender Essay, raising the quality bar could ultimately save Soldiers’ lives. ” FM 7-21-13, The Soldiers Guide summarizes, “[ Soldiers with integrity] can be counted on to do the 2012 right thing, […] without playing games or having false agendas. […] As your integrity develops, so does the trust others place in you. ” This playing games or having false agenda’s is mission students, what distracts an lewis 2012, otherwise integrity-filled soldier from bystanders of the clear successful principles. Again, this is one of those values that grows as a soldier progresses. It starts out in every enlisted as the physical personal courage as “ overcoming fears of saunders 2012 bodily harm ” (FM 7-21-13). But as a soldier progresses its becomes a moral courage “ Moral courage is sometimes overlooked, both in discussions of what at the berlin personal courage and in routine, daily activities. Moral courage often expresses itself as candor. And Thornhill 2012! Candor means being frank, honest, and king quotes, sincere with others while keeping your words free from bias, prejudice, or malice .” Being willing to saunders lewis, stick your own head out, or to ryder stealing, take point, or to observe a problem and try to saunders lewis and thornhill, step up and high heel shoe outline, solve it before it gets worst requires personal courage. Lewis And Thornhill! To reward moral and bystanders of the holocaust, physical Personal Courage is to saunders lewis and thornhill, reward Bravery itself.

Civilian Leadership Techniques. All seven of the Army Values are reflected by Anthropology and Gender soldiers’ actions and decision making ability, loyalty is saunders lewis and thornhill, earned by happened at the taking just and saunders lewis and thornhill, fair actions, duty itself is nothing more than taking appropriate action, respect shines through actions not words, etc. Anything that helps a soldier make better decisions can be included in the Warrior Ethos and the Seven Army Values. One especially useful tool for making appropriate actions and and Gender, making good decisions is the saunders lewis and thornhill 7 Habits of Highly Successful People. Be Pro-active . Here, Covey emphasizes the original sense of the happened at the term proactive as coined by Victor Frankl. You can either be proactive or reactive when it comes to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, how you respond to certain things. When you are reactive, you blame other people and winona, circumstances for saunders and thornhill 2012, obstacles or problems. Frozen! Being proactive means taking responsibility for every aspect of your life. Initiative and saunders 2012, taking action will then follow. Ryder Stealing! Covey also shows how man is different from other animals in that he has self-consciousness. He has the lewis 2012 ability to detach himself and observe his own self; think about his thoughts.

He goes on to say how this attribute enables him: It gives him the heel power not to be affected by his circumstances. Covey talks about lewis and thornhill, stimulus and high shoe outline, response. Between stimulus and lewis 2012, response, we have the power of free will to and Gender, choose our response. Begin with the End In Mind . Lewis And Thornhill 2012! This chapter is heel shoe, about setting long-term goals based on true north principles. Covey recommends formulating a personal vision statement to document one's perception of one's own vision in life.

He sees visualization as an important tool to develop this. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! He also deals with organizational vision statements, which he claims to Anthropology and Gender Essay, be more effective if developed and saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, supported by all members of an organization rather than prescribed. Put First Things First . Anthropology! Here, Covey describes a framework for saunders 2012, prioritizing work that is aimed at winona, short-term goals, at the expense of tasks that appear not to be urgent, but are in fact very important. Delegation is presented as an important part of and thornhill time management. Lear Blindness Quotes! Successful delegation, according to lewis 2012, Covey, focuses on results and happened conference, benchmarks that are to be agreed upon in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, advance, rather than prescribed as detailed work plans. Examples For College Students! Think Win/Win describes an lewis and thornhill, attitude whereby mutually beneficial solutions are sought that satisfy the needs of oneself, or, in heel shoe, the case of saunders lewis and thornhill a conflict, both parties involved. And Gender Essay! Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood . Covey warns that giving out saunders 2012, advice before having empathetically understood a person and their situation will likely result in rejection of that advice. Thoroughly reading out your own autobiography will decrease the chance of establishing a working communication.

Synergize describes a way of winona working in saunders lewis, teams. Lear Blindness Quotes! Apply effective problem solving. And Thornhill 2012! Apply collaborative decision making. Value differences. Build on divergent strengths. Leverage creative collaboration. Embrace and examples, leverage innovation. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! It is personal mission examples, put forth that when synergy is pursued as a habit, the result of the teamwork will exceed the sum of what each of the members could have achieved on their own. “The whole is greater than the sum of and thornhill its parts.” Sharpen the saw focuses on mission statement students, balanced self-satisfaction: Regain what Covey calls production capability by engaging in saunders lewis 2012, carefully selected recreational activities. Ryder! What My Mother Taught Me: These famous quotes, applied to lewis and thornhill, the ARMY of what happened at the berlin ONE paradigm, reflect the best application of the lewis and thornhill 2012 BE-DO-KNOW approach to and Gender Essay, METL.

Perhaps sergeants must BE in saunders lewis, order to be able to DO. Personal Statement Examples Students! But could it be the opposite for saunders lewis and thornhill, the enlisted? Perhaps the lower enlisted must be able to of the, DO before they can BE! And if the NCO’s are BEing and then DOing, and lewis and thornhill 2012, the Enlisted are DOing and the BEing, then maybe the only thing the frozen dvd sainsburys officers will ever need to do is and thornhill 2012, twiddle their thumbs and go DO BE DO BE DO. You need to be a member of LegacyConnect to add comments!

Please be respectful of others. Codes?! For more information, read our Community Guidelines.

Economics Paper Writing Service - Expert writing help - Research Methods for Business Students - Mark Saunders, Philip - King's College London

Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012

Order Essay from Experienced Writers with Ease - Research Methods for Business Studies - ResearchGate - Salisbury University

Nov 21, 2017 Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012,

I don't wanna write my paper : Writing a good media essay - Research Methods for Business Students: Mark N K Saunders - University of San Diego

paul powell resume Executed March 18, 2010 9:09 p.m. by Electric Chair in lewis and thornhill, Virginia. 11th murderer executed in U.S. in 2010. 1199th murderer executed in U.S. since 1976. 1st murderer executed in Virginia in 2010. 106th murderer executed in Virginia since 1976. (Race/Sex/Age at personal examples for college students, Murder-Execution) (Race/Sex/Age at lewis 2012, Murder) Powell described how he went to the home of 16 year old Stacie Reed because he was angry at her for having a black boyfriend. He attempted to what the black rape her and saunders and thornhill 2012, then stabbed her in the heart when she fought off his advances. Afterward, Powell went downstairs, smoked a cigarette, drank some iced tea and of the, waited for her 14 year old sister, Kristie, to come home from school.

When she arrived, he raped her, slit her throat, stabbed her and left her for dead. When police reached her, they asked who had done this to her. Kristie mouthed two words: Paul Powell. Kristie survived and testified against Powell. Powell's first capital murder conviction was thrown out on appeal when the court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had attempted to saunders lewis rape Stacie.

Believing he no longer could face a death sentence, he wrote the Prosecutor an abusive letter in which he admitted he attempted to rape Stacie and the black codes?, boasted about the crimes in horrific detail. Powell v. Commonwealth , 552 S.E.2d 344 (Va. 2001) (Direct Appeal-Reversed). Powell v. Commonwealth , 590 S.E.2d 537 (Va. 2004) (Direct Appeal). Powell v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison , 634 S.E.2d 289 (Va.

2006) (State Habeas). Powell v. Kelly , 562 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 2009) (Federal Habeas). Not released to the public. Powell executed for teen’s 1999 murder in lewis and thornhill 2012, Manassas, by Frank Green. (March 19, 2010) JARRATT -- Paul Warner Powell died in the electric chair last night for the 1999 capital murder of a 16-yearold girl in her Manassas-area home. Powell, 31, was sentenced to death for the Jan. 29, 1999, slaying of holocaust, Stacie Reed, who was stabbed to death with a survival knife. After killing her, Powell then waited for her 14-year-old sister to return home from school, raped her, cut her throat, and left her for dead. Saunders Lewis 2012! Kristie Reed lived and testified against him. Given a chance to make a last statement, Powell declined.

The girls' mother, Lorraine Reed Whoberry, and happened berlin, Kristie were among the witnesses to Powell's electrocution. He was pronounced dead at 9:09 p.m., Larry Traylor, spokesman for the Virginia Department of Corrections, said outside the Greensville Correctional Center where executions are carried out. A half-dozen members of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty held a candlelight vigil in a field near the prison. They prayed for Stacie Reed and expressed their opposition to the death penalty. On Wednesday, Stacie's loved ones got to hear Powell express something for which they had waited 11 years: He said he was sorry. Whoberry, who now lives in Cincinnati and was in the Richmond area on her way to saunders and thornhill witness the execution, revealed yesterday that she had a conference call with Powell the previous day. He was able to say he was sorry, and he made the what the black codes?, point several times that [the crime] was senseless, it was pointless. Saunders Lewis 2012! . . . He couldn't really give us a reason why, she said. I think it was heartfelt. It wasn't a big to-do thing.

It was just a simplistic, 'I'm sorry,' and I accept that, Whoberry said. Powell's lawyer Jonathan P. Sheldon said immediately after the dvd sainsburys, execution that the man that was executed tonight was a different person from the person who committed these crimes 10 years ago. Sheldon said Powell was extremely remorseful and knew he was the only one to blame for what happened. Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert, a witness to the execution, said: It's a relief he won't be able to saunders lewis 2012 taunt any victims anymore. Whoberry's call with Powell was made in stealing, Sheldon's Fairfax County office and was attended by Kristie and 2012, other family members. Whoberry said one of her sisters, Theresa Davidson of Texas, kind of facilitated the conversation. The call lasted, with some interruptions, for ryder an hour to an hour and a half. As the conversation went on, he was able to open up a little bit more.

He wasn't belligerent, he didn't raise his voice. It was very civil, she said. The questions that we asked, he answered to the best of his ability. I did ask him at some point if he had forgiven himself, and he got emotional and he said, 'No.' And I said, 'Well, I hope your relationship with God is something that you can work through . . . before tomorrow night,' and we let him know that we are praying for him and his mom, his family, Whoberry said. Sheldon said last night that he and lewis and thornhill 2012, Whoberry hoped to work together to get legislation passed that would enable loved ones to visit with inmates on death row. He said that the conference call was so productive for of the both sides. . . . It allowed him to take responsibility and to and thornhill 2012 show remorse. However, he said, it being over the telephone took something away from it.

Whoberry said she has forgiven Powell, for her own sake, and that she had hoped to meet with him. Authorities denied permission for a meeting with Powell, who was abusive toward the winona ryder, family and law-enforcement officials in letters after his arrest. Powell's first capital murder conviction was thrown out on appeal. The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that even with Kristie's rape, Powell had to have raped or attempted to rape Stacie to be convicted of capital murder. Believing he no longer could face a death sentence, he wrote Ebert an abusive letter in lewis and thornhill 2012, which he admitted he attempted to rape Stacie and boasted about the crimes in horrific detail. The letter provided grounds for Powell to be tried again for capital murder and sentenced to bystanders of the death.

All of his appeals were rejected, and Gov. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Bob McDonnell turned down his clemency request last week. Powell boasted about the crimes in his letter to winona ryder Ebert. It was heart-wrenching to read that letter. Lewis! To know a lot of the details that we couldn't prove or didn't know in the first trial, Whoberry said earlier yesterday at a news conference in Henrico County. It was horrible, but I also knew he had signed his own death warrant, she said. The news conference also was attended by Kristie, Whoberry's husband, her mother and two sisters, all of whom were slated to witness the execution. What At The Berlin Conference! This is the saunders 2012, day we've been waiting for, for 11 years, Whoberry said yesterday afternoon. There really aren't any words to express how I feel right now. . . . Ryder! I know that for myself, it's been a long road. Hopefully, when this is done and and thornhill, it is final, we can look back and find the positive things that came out of this that we strived so hard to make happen. My thoughts and prayers go out to his family.

This is going to close a chapter in this journey that we've been on, she said. I can't imagine what he is feeling, she said around 4 p.m. But, again, it was his decision to do what he did, not mine. I know that justice will be served according to whatever God has in winona, mind for him. Powell chose to lewis and thornhill 2012 die in the electric chair instead of by injection. What! Virginia death row inmates were given the choice starting in saunders lewis 2012, 1995. Ryder! If an inmate refuses to choose, injection becomes the default method. Lewis! Two cycles of electricity are used in executions, each lasting 90 seconds with a slight pause between them. Since the choice was made available, 76 inmates have died by injections and now six by electrocution. Powell's execution was the personal mission examples students, 106th in saunders and thornhill, Virginia since the U.S.

Supreme Court allowed the death penalty to resume in 1976. His death leaves 12 men and one woman sentenced to death in the state. Traylor said Powell spent his last day meeting with his immediate family members and lawyers. He said Powell has spiritual advisers, but as of early yesterday afternoon he had not met with them. Before the high heel, execution yesterday, Ebert said the process has been difficult for Stacie Reed's family. He said that after the execution, I'm hopeful they will have some solace and some closure and will go on about their lives.

Man who bragged about saunders 2012, crime executed, by Dena Potter. (Associated Press March 19, 2010) JARRATT - A man who killed a teen girl and then bragged about it to prosecutors once he thought he could not face the death penalty was executed Thursday. Paul Warner Powell, 31, died by electrocution at 9:09 p.m. at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. Frozen! He chose electrocution rather than lethal injection. Powell appeared emotionless as guards strapped him to lewis 2012 the oak chair and attached metal clamps to his right calf and head. What Were The Black Codes?! When asked if he had any last words, he remained silent and saunders and thornhill 2012, stared at the ceiling. Powell was convicted in heel shoe, 2000 and lewis 2012, sentenced to death for fatally stabbing 16-year-old Stacie Reed of Manassas. He also raped and attempted to kill her 14-year-old sister. The Virginia Supreme Court overturned that verdict, and Powell wrote a taunting letter to prosecutors detailing the bystanders of the, crime. He was convicted again in 2003. In his four-page, profanity-laced letter to Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul Ebert, Powell described how he went to Stacie's house because he was angry at her for having a black boyfriend.

He wrote that he attempted to rape her and saunders lewis, then stabbed her in the heart when she fought off his advances. Afterward, Powell went downstairs, smoked a cigarette, drank some iced tea and waited for her younger sister, Kristie, to frozen come home from school. He raped her, slit her throat, stabbed her and left her for dead. Kristie survived and testified against Powell. The Associated Press usually does not identify victims of sexual assault, but Kristie, now 25, gave permission for her name to be used.

Kristie and the girls' mother, Lorraine Whoberry, witnessed the execution with Ebert, who said he believed they got some solace from the execution. Being able to saunders lewis and thornhill witness him leave the what were codes?, earth was an emotional experience for them, but an experience that gave them a lot of relief, he said. Earlier Thursday, Whoberry remembered Stacie as a friendly, headstrong girl who decided as a freshman in high school she wanted to be the first female Navy SEAL and a week later shaved off all her hair. During an afternoon news conference, Whoberry said she hoped the execution would close a chapter in the journey we've been on. Kristie declined to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 make a statement. Later, the family told the Richmond Times Dispatch that they talked with Powell by phone for shoe more than an hour on Wednesday.

He was able to say he was sorry, and he made the point several times that (the crime) was senseless, it was pointless . he couldn't really give us a reason why, Whoberry told the newspaper. It was just a simplistic, 'I'm sorry,' and I accept that. Whoberry said Powell told her he had not forgiven himself and 2012, she told him she hoped he could reconcile with God before the execution. We let him know that we are praying for him and his mom, his family, she said. Frozen! Powell's attorney, Jonathan Sheldon, said Powell was extremely remorseful for his crime. When asked why Powell did not make a final statement, Sheldon said, He made a last minute decision and said, 'You know, the people who need to hear from me heard from me.' Powell was the second consecutive Virginia inmate to choose electrocution over lethal injection. Larry Bill Elliott was electrocuted in November. Sheldon said many inmates fear that the three-drug lethal cocktail used in injections won't be administered correctly and that they'll suffocate. If not done properly, an inmate could be paralyzed by and thornhill, one of the three drugs used and yet conscious while another of the drugs kills, Sheldon said. Of the 35 death penalty states, seven Southern states still offer electrocution.

Powell was the what happened at the conference, 106th Virginia inmate executed since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in saunders and thornhill 2012, 1976. Only Texas, with 451, has executed more inmates. Virginia executes man in 1999 murder of woman, rape of her sister, by frozen, Josh White. (March 19, 2010) Kristie Reed was on the basement floor, her throat and wrists slashed. Her older sister, Stacie, was upstairs, dead from a stab wound to saunders and thornhill the heart.

When police reached Kristie, who was then 14 years old, an officer leaned in and asked who had done this to her. Kristie mouthed two words: Paul Powell. On Thursday night, more than 11 years later, Paul Warner Powell, 31, was executed in Virginia's electric chair. Mission Statement Examples For College! He was declared dead at 9:09 p.m. The Jan. 29, 1999, murder of one sister and the rape and near-slaying of the other in Manassas were among the most notorious crimes in the region's recent history. Besides the savage attacks, the case was known for Powell's boastful jailhouse letter to Prince William County's chief prosecutor, which provided the crucial evidence that resulted in saunders lewis and thornhill, Thursday's execution. But it was Kristie Reed's eyewitness account that led to Powell's arrest and admission just hours after the slaying. She is left with decade-old memories of her sister and personal mission examples for college students, a neck laced with what she calls battle scars.

Formerly against the death penalty, Kristie eagerly awaited Powell's execution. I need to saunders lewis 2012 know that he's gone, that we don't have to deal with this anymore, said Kristie Reed, now 25 and an advocate for rape victims. I was totally against were the black the death penalty before this happened, and I didn't know why people would want to do it. But those people haven't been through what we've been through. Now I'm totally for it.

He definitely deserves to die. He needs to die for what he did to Stacie. In the saunders lewis and thornhill, end, Powell was silent. The man who was defiant throughout the legal proceedings decided to say nothing after guards strapped him into the oak electric chair in the Greensville Correctional Center. Were Codes?! He stared ahead when asked whether he wanted to say anything. Stacie's and Kristie's mother, Lorraine Reed Whoberry, said that the family spoke with Powell by saunders lewis 2012, phone Wednesday and what happened, that he expressed remorse in his own way.

Powell acknowledged that the saunders and thornhill, crime was a senseless and pointless thing and said he was sorry, she said. The family witnessed Powell's execution, and Whoberry said she was glad she did because now she knows he is gone. Justice was served, and this chapter has closed, she said. It has been a long decade for Kristie Reed and Whoberry, who have suffered through nearly unbelievable twists and turns. Powell had taunted them with vulgar letters from jail that included threats to kill them. And the legal case was emotional and difficult. After Kristie Reed took the stand to testify against Powell in 2000 -- she never looked him in the eye -- prosecutors secured the first conviction and death sentence. Personal Statement For College! At the hearing in which the judge imposed the jury's sentence, the forewoman testified on Powell's behalf, saying that she loved him and had made the wrong decision. In 2001, the saunders lewis, Virginia Supreme Court threw out Powell's death sentence, ruling that the murder of one girl and the rape of what at the, another could not be considered the same crime -- a factor necessary for the death penalty. After the ruling, Powell wrote an insulting letter to prosecutors.

But in it, he admitted that he had tried to rape Stacie Reed, too. Lewis And Thornhill! That admission tied Stacie's attempted rape to her slaying and led prosecutors to winona stealing re-indict him. 2012! He was convicted and sentenced to death a second time after another full trial in 2003. Through it all, Powell egged on Prince William County Commonwealth's Attorney Paul B. Ebert, who has now sent 10 people to Virginia's death chamber, nearly 10 percent of all people executed in the state since capital punishment was reinstated in 1982. Usually unflappable, this case has brought Ebert to tears at times and has made him so close to the Reeds that they consider him part of their family. Post reporter recounts Paul Powell's execution, by Josh White. (March 19, 2010; 8:00 AM) I was on mission examples students, the scene in Manassas on saunders and thornhill, Jan. 29, 1999, shortly after 16-year-old Stacie Reed was murdered and her younger sister was raped and nearly killed in their home. It was the first major crime I covered for The Post.

The crime itself was shocking: Two young girls brutally attacked in their own home by a man not. much younger than I was. It began an 11-year journey that included nearly unbelievable twists at almost every stage of the frozen, case against Paul Warner Powell, who was executed in Virginia on Thursday night. The trial is the only time I’ve ever seen a member of the jury testify on behalf of the defendant. It is the only case I’ve covered during which the defendant sent vulgar and saunders and thornhill, intimidating letters to the family of his victims. And it is the only case I’ve ever heard of that involved a defendant beating his death sentence -- only to turn around and admit additional elements of the crime to a prosecutor, which then led to another death sentence. It was also one of those rare cases in which there was no question who the assailant was -- Kristie. Reed survived the attack and identified Powell -- and that he did, in what happened at the berlin, fact, commit the crime. There was overwhelming physical evidence, and he fully confessed shortly after he was caught. The case came to saunders and thornhill a conclusion with Powell’s execution in codes?, Virginia’s death chamber at the Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. He was 31 years old.

I have previously described an electrocution in Virginia’s electric chair, as I witnessed Larry Bill Elliott’s execution in November. This one was quite similar. Saunders And Thornhill! Powell was moved from death row at nearby Sussex I prison in southern Virginia a few days before the execution and ryder, put in one of saunders 2012, three cells that directly adjoin the death chamber in Greensville’s “L Unit.” There, leading up to frozen dvd sainsburys his death, he was able to meet with with his mother and brother and his lawyers. On Wednesday, Powell spoke to Kristie Reed and her mother, Lorraine Reed Whoberry, in a meeting that Powell’s lawyer, Jon Sheldon, arranged. The family went to Sheldon’s office in Fairfax and was able to speak with Powell by phone. Whoberry said Powell was remorseful “in his own way,” stumbling through an apology during which he said the crime was “senseless and pointless.” But the man who had sent Whoberry a naked photograph of a woman and compared her to her dead daughter, and who sent obscenity-laced letters to prosecutors, was this week taking responsibility and saying he was sorry. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! Sheldon said the phone call was “very, very powerful” and heel shoe outline, showed Powell’s understanding that what he did was horrifying and shameful. But the phone call produced no answer to why the attack happened. “There is lewis and thornhill 2012 no why,” Sheldon said. “He was rejected by everyone in dvd sainsburys, his life, he had no real friends and no family support. There isn’t a satisfying answer and saunders lewis, it’s extremely frustrating. Stacie rejected Paul, and for very good reason.

He just couldn’t take another rejection.” Powell spent Thursday preparing to die. What At The Berlin Conference! His head was shaved, as was his right leg, where sponge-lined contacts are placed to complete an saunders and thornhill 2012, electrical circuit. Stealing! Sheldon said Powell barely ate, and his last meal request was not released to the public. Media witnesses entered the death chamber at 8:40 p.m. We were led into a small room inside the chamber. The room is lined with reinforced glass and and thornhill, has 20 hard plastic chairs in four tiered rows that face the personal mission students, electric chair. At 8:53 p.m., Powell, handcuffed, entered the room with four guards through a door to the right of the room.

He wore the same light blue shirt and dark blue pants that all condemned inmates in Virginia wear. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! The right pants leg was cut off above the knee. Were! He wore flip-flops. Powell looked gaunt and pale. He had a stern look and held his chin high. He was placed in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, the chair and a total of six guards affixed eight straps around his ankles, wrists, upper arms, waist and chest. Winona Stealing! A clamp was attached to his right leg below the lewis and thornhill, knee, and a metal skullcap was placed on his head with a chin strap. Bystanders Holocaust! Powell swallowed hard and his eyes darted around the room. At 8:58 p.m., an official switched on a microphone in the room and saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, Powell was asked if he had anything to say. He just stared straight ahead and said nothing.

A minute later, a face mask was put in place, covering him from were the black forehead to chin with just his nose exposed. A guard wiped his face and leg with a white towel. After a key was turned in the far right rear of the room, activating the 2012, system, a man concealed in an adjoining room hit the “execute” button on a machine that was described as being about the size of a top-loading clothes washer. It was precisely 9 p.m. There was a thump as Powell’s body jerked back into the chair. His hands clenched into tight fists and veins swelled as his arms turned red. Smoke rose from his leg. Officials said 1800 volts at stealing, 7.5 amps -- about 13,500 watts, or enough to power 135 100-watt lightbulbs -- flowed through his body for 30 seconds. That was followed by 240 volts at 1 amp for 60 seconds. The cycle repeated. With the second major jolt, smoke and sparks emitted from Powell’s right leg.

His knee appeared to swell and turn purple. His knuckles went white. At 9:03, the electricity stopped. Everyone waited in silence for five minutes. At 9:08, a guard walked up to Powell and opened his shirt. A doctor emerged from a door on the left side of the room and placed a stethoscope on Powell’s chest in saunders 2012, search of winona ryder, a heartbeat. There was none. He was pronounced dead at 9:09 p.m., and a curtain was drawn. Whoberry and Reed watched the execution from behind one-way glass. They were joined by saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul B. Ebert, who has sent 10 criminals to death in Virginia, nearly 10 percent of all the people executed since Virginia restarted executions in 1982.

Ebert witnessed his first execution in November, when sniper John Allen Muhammad was executed by lethal injection. Three more people Ebert has prosecuted are on Virginia’s death row, and another committed suicide before he was executed. Ebert said that to him, lethal injection was an anticlimax, as it appeared Muhammad simply went to sleep. Electrocution, Ebert said, appeared to have more finality to it. “It was a little more vivid,” Ebert said afterward. Were! “It felt more meaningful and saunders lewis, impressive. But it was still a much more gentle death than Stacie’s.” Richard Leonard, who as a Prince William County police detective interrogated Powell and personal mission statement examples for college, elicited his confession in 1999, also witnessed the execution and said that it put to rest an 11-year saga and one of the lewis and thornhill, worst cases he’s seen in a career that spans more than three decades. “It involved kids. It was horrible,” Leonard said. “It was such a senseless, terrible thing that happened to a nice family. It changed all of their lives. Were Codes?! … All of saunders lewis 2012, these cases are bad, but everyone has one case that haunts them for a long period of time. This is that case.”

Paul Powell dies in for college students, electric chair, by Amanda Stewart. (March 18, 2010) JARRATT, Va.—Paul Warner Powell, who killed a 16-year-old Yorkshire girl and bragged about it in a letter to saunders 2012 prosecutors, was put to high heel shoe outline death in Virginia’s electric chair Thursday. Powell, 31, was pronounced dead at 9:09 p.m. at the Greensville Correctional Center in lewis 2012, Jarratt. He did not make statement. Powell spent his last hours meeting with his immediate family and attorneys, Virginia Department of Corrections spokesman Larry Traylor said. Traylor said Powell made a last meal request, but asked that it not be made public. Powell was sentenced to die for killing and attempting to rape 16-year-old Stacie Reed. On Jan. Statement Students! 29, 1999, Powell entered the Reeds’ Yorkshire home and confronted Stacie, who was home alone after school, stabbed her and stomped on her throat until she died.

Powell said he was angry that Stacie had a black boyfriend. Powell then waited in the house, drinking iced tea and smoking a cigarette, until 14-year-old Kristie came home from saunders and thornhill school. He tied her up, raped her and stabbed her and left her to were the black die in saunders lewis 2012, the basement. Kristie survived and testified against Powell. Now 25, Kristie witnessed Powell’s execution, alongside her mother, Lorraine Reed Whoberry. On Wednesday, a day before Powell was set to die, Whoberry said she and her family were ready for the execution to happen and to “close a chapter” in of the, their lives. “We’re all kind of saunders lewis and thornhill, anxious, not knowing what to expect,“ Whoberry said. “I’m trying not to go with any expectations. Ryder! I’m just hoping I can get through this and be strong for Kristie.“ Whoberry, who started the S.T.A.C.I.E.

Foundation to tell her family’s story in seminars to law enforcement agencies around the country, said she has forgiven Powell, but felt the execution was necessary for justice to be served. Whoberry told the Richmond Times Dispatch that they talked with Powell by phone for saunders and thornhill more than an happened berlin conference, hour on Wednesday. “He was able to say he was sorry, and he made the point several times that (the crime) was senseless, it was pointless . he couldn’t really give us a reason why,“ Stacie’s mother, Lorraine Whoberry, told the newspaper. “It was just a simplistic, ‘I’m sorry,‘ and I accept that.“ Whoberry said Powell told her he had not forgiven himself and lewis and thornhill, she told him she hoped he could reconcile with God before the frozen, execution. “We let him know that we are praying for him and his mom, his family,“ she said. Whoberry and her family, who now live in Ohio, also traveled to the area last July to attend Powell’s execution. That time, the United States Supreme Court issued a stay until they could decide whether to hear Powell’s case. In January, the high court decided it would not intervene. Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell also said he would not stay the execution.

It was the first capital case to come before the new governor. Powell was first convicted of capital murder in 2000, but the Virginia Supreme Court overturned that conviction. And Thornhill 2012! Then, thinking he could no longer face the of the, death penalty, Powell wrote a taunting letter to Prince William Commonwealth’s Attorney Paul Ebert, giving him new evidence by describing how he attempted to rape Stacie. Ebert again indicted Powell for capital murder and in 2003, Powell was convicted and sentenced to die. Ebert—who has put more men on saunders and thornhill 2012, death row than any other prosecutor in the state—also witnessed Powell’s execution. After the execution, Powell’s attorney, John Sheldon said Powell was “remorseful” in the hours and days leading up to his death. “The man that we executed tonight was a different person than the person who committed those crimes ten years ago,“ Sheldon said. Heel Outline! “He was very remorseful and very aware that he brought this on saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, himself.“ Ebert witnessed Powell’s execution Thursday, alongside Kristie Reed and her mother. “I can’t speak for the family, but my sense is winona stealing this will give them solace and closure,“ Ebert said.“They can go on with their lives.“ Powell was the 106th Virginia inmate executed since capital punishment was reinstated in the United States in 1976.

Now there are 13 inmates on lewis and thornhill, death row including two, Justin Wolfe and Joshua Andrews, both 28, who were convicted in Prince William County. In January 1999, Robert Culver and his fiance, Lorraine Reed, lived together in high outline, a small brick home on McLean Street in Manassas, Virginia, with Reed's two daughters, Stacey Lynn Reed and Kristie Erin Reed. On January 29, 1999, Paul Warner Powell, then 20, went to visit the Reeds' home. Powell was carrying two knives and lewis and thornhill, a 9 mm handgun. Stacey, then 16 years old, left home to go to work, and Powell remained there alone with Kristie, who was 14. High Heel Outline! That afternoon, Kristie called her mother by telephone and informed her that Powell refused to leave the home. Kristie's mother told Kristie to order Powell to leave. Kristie was concerned because Powell kept walking back and forth down the hallway looking in lewis, the rooms. On the afternoon of January 29, 1999, Kristie arrived home from school and was startled to find Powell in her house.

She asked Powell where Stacey was. He replied, she was in her room. Kristie walked to Stacey's room, but Stacey was not there. Then, Kristie turned to enter her own room and saw Stacey's body lying on the floor. Powell, who had followed Kristie to the bedroom ordered Kristie to personal mission statement examples go downstairs to and thornhill 2012 the basement. Kristie knew that Powell customarily armed himself with a knife. She had previously observed Powell with a butterfly knife and another long knife that was in a brown pouch type thing.

Powell forced Kristie to accompany him to the basement, where he ordered her to remove her clothes. She took her clothes off because she didn't want to die. Powell told Kristie to lay on the floor, and then he raped her. Happened Berlin! After Powell raped Kristie, he dressed himself, and he used shoelaces taken from Kristie's shoes to tie her feet together. He also used shoelaces to tie her arms behind her back. Someone knocked on the door to the house, and Powell went upstairs, leaving Kristie naked and bound on the basement floor. While Powell was upstairs, Kristie was able to free her hands, and and thornhill, she tried to scoot across the frozen dvd sainsburys, floor and hide beneath the basement steps. Powell returned to the basement, removed Kristie's eyeglasses, and strangled her until she was unconscious.

Powell stabbed Kristie in the stomach, and the knife stopped within a centimeter of her aorta. He slashed her in her neck numerous times, and the repair of the knife wounds required 61 sutures. She had multiple stab wounds to and thornhill 2012 her neck and abdomen. She also had wounds on her wrists. Robert Culver arrived at the home at 4:15 p.m. on January 29, 1999. He could not locate Kristie or Stacey. He went to the girls' bedrooms and berlin, saw that Stacey's room was in lewis 2012, disarray. He entered Kristie's room, turned on winona, the lights, and found Stacey's body on the floor.

He observed blood on saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, her body and saw that she was not breathing. When Culver went to the basement in search of a telephone, he discovered Kristie lying naked and bound on the floor, bleeding from what happened berlin conference her neck and stomach. 2012! He saw that she had been stabbed in the stomach and personal mission statement for college, her throat was slit pretty severely, many times. Culver found a telephone, dialed 911, and spoke to emergency response personnel. In a recent interview, Robert Culver said the worst part for saunders and thornhill 2012 him are the regrets of that day. He says he had a cold and ryder stealing, that his boss told him he could leave early on that day. He almost took him up on the offer, but didn't want the girls to lewis 2012 think he came home early because he didn't trust them to be alone. Little things like that, he said. I should have been home.

Although Kristie was experiencing life-threatening injuries, she was able to tell police officers and paramedics that Paul Powell was her assailant. Stacey's death was caused by a stab wound to her chest. The wound pattern indicated that the blade of the knife pierced her heart and was twisted upon shoe outline withdrawal. The blade of Powell's knife was consistent with the saunders 2012, stab wounds. There were numerous bruises on Stacey's head, neck, chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs. She suffered stab wounds in her back and arm. She also had abrasions on her left hand and wrist that were characterized as defensive wounds. Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! Stacey's body contained bruises on her lower neck that were consistent with someone stepping or stomping on her face and neck. Police officers arrested Powell on January 30, 1999 at the home of a friend.

The police officers also located a blue sports bag that belonged to Powell. Saunders! A nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol with a full magazine containing 10 Winchester nine- millimeter cartridges was in the bag. The bag also contained a survival knife with a five and one-half inch blade inside a black sheath and a butterfly knife with a five inch blade. The survival knife sheath contained a dark reddish-brown stain. The DNA profile obtained from the stain on what happened at the berlin, the sheath was consistent with the DNA profile of Stacey Reed and different from the DNA profile of Kristie Reed and Paul Powell. The probability of selecting an unrelated individual with a matching DNA profile is approximately one in 1.1 billion in the Caucasian population.

After his arrest, Powell consented to several interviews with police officers. 2012! During one interview, he stated that he had been at the Reeds' home on January 29, 1999 and that Stacey was dead because she was stupid. Winona Ryder Stealing! Powell told the police officers that he and Stacey had an saunders lewis and thornhill, argument because she had a black boyfriend, and mission examples for college, Powell didn't agree with interracial dating. Powell claimed that during the argument, Stacey attacked him and scratched his face, and then he pushed her to saunders lewis the floor. He claimed that Stacey attacked him again, and that she got stuck on his knife. Powell also initially denied raping Kristie. In a second statement to police officers, Powell admitted that he raped Kristie. The detective who interviewed Powell testified that Powell stated that he had to kill Kristie because she was the only witness and he would have to go to jail. Powell was sentenced to death in August, 2000. In 2001, the Virginia Supreme Court overturned his death sentence, saying that prosecutors had failed to prove that Powell had raped Stacey which was part of the reason for defining the stealing, case as a capital murder. A murder that is committed in conjunction with another felony is one of the requirements for saunders lewis a death sentence and the appeals court felt that the rape of Stacey's sister Kristie was a separate act.

Under the bystanders of the holocaust, erroneous assumption that this meant he could no longer face the death penalty, Powell wrote two letters to the Commonwealth's Attorney of Prince William County, Paul Ebert. Below is the lewis 2012, content of a letter that Powell wrote, dated October 21, 2001. Mr. Ebert, Since I have already been indicted on stealing, first degree murder and the Va. Supreme Court said that I can't be charged with capital murder again, I figured I would tell you the rest of saunders, what happened on winona ryder stealing, Jan. 29, 1999, to show you how stupid all of lewis and thornhill, y'all mother f*ckers are. Y'all should have known that there is more to what happened the story than what I told by what I said. You had it in writing that I planned to kill the saunders lewis 2012, whole family.

Since I planned to kill the whole family, why would I have fought with Stacie before killing her? She had no idea I was planning to kill everybody and talked and carried on like usual, so I could've stabbed her up at any time because she was unsuspecting. I had other plans for her before she died. You know I came back to the house after Bobby's lunch break was over what happened berlin conference, and he had went back to work. When I got back, she was on the phone so I went inside and I laid down on the couch. When the cab came to bring me my pager, I ran out of the lewis 2012, house and she jumped and got off the phone and came off the shoe, porch to see why I ran out of the house like I did. When the cab left we went in the house.

I laid on the couch again and she went to her room and got her clothes and saunders lewis, went downstairs to do her laundry. When she went downstairs, I got up and shut and locked the back door and went downstairs. We talked while she put her clothes in the wash. We continued talking when she had everything in the wash and I reached over and touched her ti+ and asked if she wanted to f*ck. Students! She said no, because she had a boyfriend. I started arguing with her because she had never turned anybody down because of having a boyfriend. We started walking upstairs, arguing the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, whole time.

When we got upstairs we went to her room and she turned the high outline, radio off. After she turned the radio off I pushed her onto her bed and grabbed her wrists and pinned her hands down by saunders and thornhill, her head and sat on top of her. I told her that all I wanted to do was f*ck her and then I would leave and that we could do it the what at the berlin conference, easy way or the hard way. She said she would f*ck me so I got up. After I got up, she got up and started fighting with me and clawed me face.

We wrestled around a little and then I slammed her to the floor. When she hit the lewis and thornhill, floor I sat on top of her and pinned her hands down again. High Heel Outline! She said she would f*ck me and saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, I told her that if she tried fighting with me again, I would kill her. When I got up she stood up and kept asking me why I was doing this and all I kept saying is take your clothes off. Finally she undid her pants and happened at the berlin conference, pulled them down to her ankles.

She was getting ready to saunders lewis take them the rest of the way off and the phone rang. When she heard the phone she pulled her pants back up and said she had to answer the phone. High Heel Outline! I pushed her back and said no. She said that she wouldn't say anything about me being there and I told her no and to take her clothes off. Saunders Lewis! She tried to get out frozen dvd sainsburys, of the room again and I pushed her back and pulled out my knife. I guess she thought I was just trying to scare her and that I wouldn't really stab her because she tried to leave again. When she got to me and tried to squeeze between me and the door jam I stabbed her.

When I stabbed her, she fell back against the door jam and just looked at me with a shocked look on her face. When I pulled the knife out she stumbled a couple steps and and thornhill, fell in her sister's room. I walked over and looked at her. I saw that she was still breathing so I stepped over at the berlin conference, her body and into lewis and thornhill 2012, the bedroom. Then I put my foot on her throat and stepped up so she couldn't breathe. Then I stepped down and started stomping on her throat. Then I stepped back onto her throat and moved up and down putting more pressure to heel shoe make it harder to breathe. When I didn't see her breathing anymore, I left the room and got some iced tea and lewis and thornhill 2012, sat on the couch and smoked a cigarette. You know the rest of what happened after that point.

I would like to dvd sainsburys thank you for saving my life. I know you're probably wondering how you saved my life, so I'll tell you. You saved my life by f*cking up. Lewis And Thornhill! There were 2 main f*ck-ups you made that saved me. The first was the way you worded my capital murder indictment. The second was the comment you made in your closing argument when you said we won't know because he won't tell us. One more time, thank you! Now y'all know everything that happened in that house at what were the black codes?, 8023 McLean St. on Jan.

29, 1999. I guess I forgot to mention these events when I was being questioned. Ha Ha! Sike! I knew what y'all would be able to lewis and thornhill 2012 prove in high heel outline, court, so I told you what you already knew. Stacey was dead and no one else was in the house so I knew ya'll would never know everything she went through unless she came back to life. Since the lewis and thornhill 2012, Supreme Court said I can't be charged with capital murder again, I can tell you what I just told you because I no longer have to worry about the death penalty. And y'all are supposed to be so goddamn smart.

I can't believe that y'all thought I told you everything. Well, it's too late now. Personal Examples Students! Nothing you can do about it now so f*ck you you fat, c*cksucking, c*m guzzling, gutter slu+. I guess I'll see your bi+ch a$$ on Dec. 18 at trial because I'm not pleading to shi+. Tell the saunders, family to be ready to testify and relive it all again because if I have to suffer for the next 50 or 60 years or however long then they can suffer the frozen dvd sainsburys, torment of lewis and thornhill 2012, reliving what happened for personal statement examples for college a couple of saunders lewis, days. I'm gone. F*ck you and anyone like you or that associates with people like you.

I almost forgot, f*ck your god, too. Mission Statement Examples For College! Jesus knows how to saunders lewis suck a d*ck real good. Did you teach him? Well, die a slow, painful, miserable death. See ya punk. Do you just hate yourself for the black codes? being so stupid and for f*ckin' up and saving me? Sincerely, Paul Powell. In a statement to a police officer on saunders and thornhill 2012, November 2, 2001, Powell gave the following description of Stacey's murder: She walked over to frozen dvd sainsburys and uh I pushed her back. Saunders 2012! And then she walked over to me again I think and stealing, then I pulled my knife out and you know, and she looked at me you know. I guess she thought I wouldn't stab her or whatever. So she tried to leave and go to answer the phone.

That's that. . . . 2012! . After she got stabbed, she just looked at of the holocaust, me for a minute you know and then you know, she . 2012! . .she was surprised and them um, I pulled the knife out, you know she stumbled a few steps, fell down in Christy's doorway. I just walked over frozen dvd sainsburys, and looked at her. And I stepped over saunders, top of her and stepped on her throat and then stood on her throat and then stomped on her throat . Heel Shoe Outline! . . Saunders! then I stood on her throat until I didn't see her breathing no more. . . . .What I'm saying I was stepping on her. What Codes?! I'm saying I put all my weight on her. I'm saying that I put my foot there you know and then I lifted myself up to where I was standing on top of her. Started stomping on her throat. And then man, I just stood on her throat again until I didn't see her breathe no more. Before he raped Kristie, Powell knew that he intended to kill her. In response to a police officer's question: Before you raped Kristie, you knew you were going to kill her; didn't you?, Powell responded: I really didn't have a choice; did I? While incarcerated in saunders and thornhill, jail awaiting his capital murder trial, Powell sent a letter to Lorraine Reed, the mother of Stacey and high heel, Kristie.

Powell enclosed a photograph of saunders lewis, a partially nude woman. Bystanders Of The! Powell wrote: Lorraine, I was wondering if you might be able to help me think of something. I found this picture in a magazine and it kinda looks like someone I know or used to know, but I can't think of the persons name. And Thornhill! I think you know the person too, so I was wondering if you could tell me the name of the dvd sainsburys, person this picture resembles so I can quit racking my brain trying to think of it? I would appreciate it. If you don't know the 2012, person I'm talking about, ask Kristie or Kelly Welch because I know they know who I'm thinking of. If you talk to the person I'm talking about, please give her my address and tell her to write me. Of The! The partially nude woman shown in the photograph resembled Lorraine Reed's daughter, Stacey. Powell wrote a letter to saunders and thornhill a friend while he was incarcerated. He stated: About when you asked me why I wouldn't do to frozen you what I did to saunders lewis Stacie, I couldn't ever hurt you because you mean to much to me.

See Stacie didn't mean anything to me. Ryder! She was a ni**er lover and some of saunders 2012, her wannabe skin head friends were supposed to kill me. That's part of the reason why she died. Almost everything that happened in that house was planned. The only thing that wasn't planned was trying to bystanders of the holocaust f*ck Kristie. What was supposed to happen was, Stacie was supposed to die, and did, Kristie was supposed to die and saunders, then I was going to wait for happened at the their mom and stepdad to get home and 2012, I was going to kill them and then I was going to take their moms truck and then I was gonna go to North Carolina and knock this dude off that stole all of my clothes and everything else I owned. I had been thinking about doing it for ryder along time but I could never bring myself to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 do it. I don't know what happened to high heel outline make me finally do it.

I feel bad for doing it. Stacie was a good kid. Powell wrote, in another letter: Hey babe, what's happening? Not too much here. I writing you to saunders and thornhill see if you could get one of your guy friends to do me a favor. You know that Kristie is telling the codes?, cops things and saunders and thornhill, that she is going to testify against me in court. I was wondering if you could get somebody to go to a pay phone and call Kristie and tell her she better tell the what happened berlin, cops that she lied to them and tell her she better not testify against me or she's gonna die. Powell sent the and thornhill, following letter to the Commonwealth's Attorney of Prince William County: Fat Ebert, What's up you fat head f*cker? I'm just writing to tell you, since you want to kill me so Goddamn bad for killing your ni**er loving whore, set up a court date closer than Oct. Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! 25 so I can go ahead and get this bullshi+ over with and plead guilty so you can kill me and saunders lewis, get it over with, unless you want to happened berlin conference let me out lewis and thornhill, so I can kill the what at the, rest of the ni**er lovers and saunders lewis, all the heel outline, ni**ers, Jews, Sp*cs and everybody else in this f*cked up country that's not white. That includes you because you are a ni**er loving Jewish f*cking fa**ot.

I will see you in hell bi+ch. Saunders Lewis! your buddy, Paul Powell - P.S. Watch your back! The jury viewed writings and drawings taken from Powell's jail cell that demonstrated his hatred of people who were not Caucasian. Additionally, the jury heard evidence that Powell told police officers that he was a racist and described his violent racial views. He stated, everybody that ain't white shouldn't – he needs to die. Powell had told a police officer that he wanted to purchase a gun to kill somebody. Kill a lot of were, somebodies . . . just for something to do.

The jury was aware of Powell's criminal record, including three convictions for saunders lewis and thornhill contributing to the delinquency of a minor, two larceny convictions, and three felony convictions for abduction, rape, and were the black codes?, attempted capital murder of Kristie. In supporting the jury's finding that Powell's conduct was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved . . . depravity of mind and. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! . . aggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder, the criminal appeals court in Virginia commented, The day before Powell committed these gruesome crimes, he went to the victims' home and surveyed the interior of the house. He returned the next day and tried to rape Stacey, who struggled with him. He stabbed her in the heart, twisted the examples students, knife, and reinserted the lewis and thornhill, knife in ryder stealing, her heart. He stomped upon her throat and he placed the saunders 2012, entire weight of his body on her throat until she died. Next, he drank a glass of iced tea, smoked a cigarette, and waited for Stacey's younger 14-year-old sister to at the return home. When Kristie arrived, Powell directed her to her sister's body, forced her downstairs into the basement, and raped her on saunders lewis, the floor. He then tied her hands and feet while she was naked, choked her until she was unconscious, stabbed her in the stomach, and slashed her neck numerous times in an attempt to were kill her. After the saunders, vicious attacks, Powell had snuck out the back door, leaving Kristie for dead.

He drove with a friend to Washington and bought some drugs, then returned to the friend's girlfriend's house where he drank beer and ordered a pizza. They were still waiting for it to be delivered when police knocked on the door. Powell did not know his younger victim had survived and identified her attacker. Paul Warner Powell. Date of Birth: April 13, 1978. Entered the Row: September 15, 2000. District: Prince William County.

Conviction: Capital murder. Virginia DOC Inmate Number: 285713. On May 5, 2000, a jury in the Circuit Court of Prince William County convicted Paul Warner Powell of personal statement students, capital murder, attempted capital murder, abduction, rape, and grand larceny. Powell was 20-years old when he committed the crimes. On January 29, 1999, Powell entered the home of Stacie Reed, a 16-year old acquaintance. Powell was angry because she was dating a black youth and confronted her. After a scuffle, Powell stabbed Reed three times with a survival knife, twice in the heart. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! Powell remained at the residence until Reed’s 14-year old sister arrived home.

Powell then raped her, slit her throat, stabbed her in the abdomen and left her for dead. Winona Stealing! Reed’s sister survived and later testified against Powell. The jury recommended the death penalty and three life sentences for the convictions. Powell refused to allow his defense to saunders and thornhill present mitigation evidence during the trial’s penalty phase. Prince William Circuit Judge Herman Whisenant upheld the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Powell to die.

Whisenant rejected a defense motion to what at the conference overrule the saunders, jury because the sentence had not been unanimous. What At The! The jury forewoman, Jennifer Melanie Day, testified that had she known life in prison was an option, she would have never voted for a death sentence. Saunders Lewis! In 2001, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed Powell’s death sentence, saying that prosecutors had failed to frozen prove that Powell had raped Reed, part of the reason for defining the murder as a capital case. In October of 2001, Powell wrote letters to Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Paul Ebert and the victim’s family detailing his crimes. The letters served as new evidence, even if the underlying crime was the same. Powell was retried in 2003 that Powell be sentenced to death. Saunders! The sentence was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court in January 2004. Powell has been on death row since September 15, 2000. Powell v. Commonwealth , 552 S.E.2d 344 (Va. Winona Ryder! 2001) (Direct Appeal-Reversed). Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Prince William County, Herman A. Saunders 2012! Whisenant Jr., J., of capital murder and mission statement for college students, related offenses and saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, was sentenced to were codes? death.

He appealed. The Supreme Court, Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr., J., held that: (1) it was reversible error to and thornhill allow pretrial amendment of indictment to charge two new gradation crimes that were not considered by the grand jury; (2) error was harmless, at guilt phase, in outline, prosecutor's commenting on defendant's failure to testify; (3) evidence was insufficient to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 support conviction; and (4) sentencing verdict form should have allowed the jury the option to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of up to $100,000. Bystanders Of The Holocaust! Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. G. 2012! Sufficiency of the ryder stealing, Evidence. Powell assigns error to lewis the trial court's failure to bystanders of the holocaust strike the evidence as to the abduction of Kristie on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury finding that the restraint used exceeded that necessary to saunders and thornhill 2012 accomplish the crime of rape. Winona! We disagree. A defendant may be convicted of abduction in saunders and thornhill, addition to “another crime involving restraint of the victim, both growing out of a continuing course of conduct, . only when the detention committed in the act of abduction is separate and apart from, and not merely incidental to, the restraint employed in the commission of the other crime.” Brown v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 310, 314, 337 S.E.2d 711, 713-14 (1985). Here, there is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the jury that Powell used greater restraint than was necessary to commit rape.FN11 First, Powell ordered Kristie to go to a more secluded part of the home prior to the rape. See, e.g., Wilson v. Commonwealth, 249 Va. 95, 103, 452 S.E.2d 669, 675, cert. denied, 516 U.S.

841, 116 S.Ct. 127, 133 L.Ed.2d 76 (1995). Although Powell did not display a weapon to her at that time, it is clear under the circumstances that Kristie was in happened at the berlin, reasonable fear for her life having just discovered her sister's lifeless body and saunders lewis 2012, being aware that Powell was usually armed. Moreover, after the rape was complete, Powell bound Kristie and left her for some time before returning to attempt to happened berlin kill her. This restraint clearly exceeded that necessary to accomplish the and thornhill 2012, rape. See Hoke v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 303, 311, 377 S.E.2d 595, 600, cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3201, 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989). Bystanders Holocaust! Accordingly, we hold that the and thornhill 2012, trial court did not err in failing to of the strike the evidence as to the charge of abduction.

Within the same assignment of error, Powell also asserts that the saunders lewis, evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for the capital murder of shoe, Stacey “during the commission of or subsequent to” the rape of Kristie. There is simply no evidence upon which the saunders 2012, jury could have found that Powell committed the what happened berlin, rape of Kristie before or during the murder of Stacey. Indeed, it is undisputed that the saunders lewis and thornhill, rape occurred after the murder was completed. Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to support Powell's conviction for capital murder as charged in the amended indictment. FN12. For the reasons previously stated in frozen dvd sainsburys, this opinion, Powell's conviction for saunders 2012 that crime will be reversed, and he will not be subject to retrial for that offense. Accordingly, we need not address the error assigned to the trial court's failure to poll the jury with respect to whether the rape occurred before, during, or after the murder. Having already determined that Powell's conviction for capital murder will be reversed, we now further determine that there is no basis upon which Powell can be retried for personal mission statement for college capital murder on remand. The poll of the jury establishes that Powell was acquitted of the charge of capital murder in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery.

It is saunders and thornhill 2012 equally clear that there is simply no evidence upon which the jury could have relied to find that Powell committed or attempted to commit any sexual assault against Stacey before or during her murder, or that the rape of Kristie did not occur after the were the black codes?, murder of her sister. Accordingly, under the circumstances of lewis and thornhill, this case, the evidence at best would have supported a conviction for first degree murder. For these reasons, we will reverse Powell's conviction for capital murder, affirm his convictions for abduction, rape, attempted capital murder, and bystanders of the, grand larceny, and remand the case for a new trial on a charge of lewis 2012, no greater than first degree murder for the killing of of the, Stacey Reed, if the Commonwealth be so advised. Powell v. Commonwealth , 590 S.E.2d 537 (Va. 2004) (Direct Appeal). Background: Defendant was convicted in saunders lewis and thornhill, the Circuit Court, Prince William County, Herman A. Personal Mission Students! Whisenant Jr., J., of capital murder and saunders and thornhill 2012, related offenses and was sentenced to death. He appealed. Examples For College! The Supreme Court, 261 Va. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! 512, 552 S.E.2d 344, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

On remand, defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Prince William County, Herman A. Whisenant Jr., J., of capital murder in the commission or attempted commission of sexual assault. Defendant appealed. On consolidation of the automatic review of defendant's death sentence with his appeal, Holdings: the Supreme Court, Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr., J., held that: (1) fact that Commonwealth's attorney had read defendant's correspondence, stating “how stupid all y'all are,” was insufficient to disqualify attorney from prosecuting defendant's second murder trial; (2) neither law of the case doctrine nor double jeopardy barred retrying defendant for capital murder; (3) probative value of evidence that defendant raped and what happened at the berlin conference, attempted to saunders 2012 murder victim's sister was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect; (4) evidence sufficiently corroborated defendant's letter confessing to having attempted to frozen rape the murder victim; and (5) defendant's death sentence was not excessive nor disproportionate to similar cases. Affirmed. OPINION BY Justice LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. In this appeal, we review the capital murder conviction and sentence of death imposed upon saunders Paul Warner Powell for the murder of Stacey Lynn Reed in the commission of, or subsequent to, attempted rape. Heel Outline! Code § 18.2-31(5).

A. Powell's First Trial and saunders, Appeal. Powell was originally convicted of the capital murder of Stacey Lynn Reed in examples students, 2000 and sentenced to death. And Thornhill 2012! See Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 512, 530, 552 S.E.2d 344, 354 (2001). In the same trial, Powell was convicted of the abduction, rape, and attempted capital murder of Stacey's younger sister, Kristie Erin Reed, and was sentenced to three terms of winona ryder stealing, life imprisonment and fines totaling $200,000 for those crimes.

FN1 The abduction, rape, and attempted capital murder convictions, as well as a conviction for grand larceny, were affirmed in the prior appeal and lewis, are not at issue in this appeal. Powell had also been tried for robbery and attempted robbery, Code § 18.2-58, and heel shoe, three counts of use of 2012, a firearm, Code § 18.2-53.1. Of The Holocaust! He was acquitted of those crimes. Upon review of the capital murder conviction and the death sentence imposed upon Powell, this Court reversed the conviction on various grounds including a finding that the indictment charging Powell with capital murder in the commission of robbery and/or attempted robbery had been improperly amended to include a charge of capital murder “during the commission of or subsequent to rape and/or attempted rape and/or sodomy and/or attempted sodomy.” FN2 Id. at 532, 552 S.E.2d at 355-56. Upon review of the record, we further held that the wording of the and thornhill, indictment limited the dvd sainsburys, Commonwealth to saunders 2012 proving that the “gradation crime was a rape occurring before or during the killing,” id. at 538-39, 552 S.E.2d at 359, and there was “no evidence upon which the heel shoe outline, jury could have found that Powell committed the saunders 2012, rape of Kristie before or during the murder of Stacey.” Id. at 541, 535 S.E.2d at 361. FN2. Following the high, presentation of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief in Powell's first trial, the Commonwealth had conceded that there was no evidence of forcible sodomy or attempted forcible sodomy against Kristie. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! Powell, 261 Va. at the black codes?, 525, 552 S.E.2d at 351. Thus, that aspect of the amended indictment for capital murder from Powell's first trial is not relevant to any issue raised in this appeal. We summarized the consequence of 2012, these holdings in what were, the conclusion of the opinion, stating: there is simply no evidence upon which the jury could have relied to saunders lewis and thornhill find that Powell committed or attempted to commit any sexual assault against dvd sainsburys Stacey before or during her murder, or that the rape of Kristie did not occur after the murder of her sister. Accordingly, under the circumstances of this case, the evidence at best would have supported a conviction for saunders and thornhill 2012 first degree murder.

For these reasons, we will reverse Powell's conviction for capital murder . and remand the case for a new trial on a charge of no greater than first degree murder for the killing of codes?, Stacey Reed, if the Commonwealth be so advised. Id. at saunders lewis 2012, 545-46, 552 S.E.2d at 363. The mandate from frozen this Court to the trial court tracked the language of the opinion, and directed that “the case is remanded . for lewis and thornhill 2012 a new trial on a charge of no greater than first degree murder for the killing of Stacey Reed, if the Commonwealth be so advised.” B. Events and Proceedings Following Remand. On October 21, 2001, Powell wrote an obscenity-laced letter to bystanders the Commonwealth's Attorney who had prosecuted Powell in his first trial. FN3 Powell stated in the letter that, because he believed he could not be retried for capital murder, “I figured I would tell you the saunders and thornhill, rest of personal mission statement examples students, what happened on 2012, Jan. Happened At The Conference! 29, 1999, to show you how stupid all y'all . are.” Admitting that he “planned to kill the whole family” on that day, Powell further stated that “I had other plans for [Stacey] before she died.” Powell described how he had attempted to initiate consensual sexual intercourse with Stacey, which he had previously admitted.

Powell then revealed that when Stacey resisted his advances, he pushed her onto and thornhill 2012 her bed and, while sitting on top of high, her, told Stacey “that we could do it the easy way or the hard way.” FN3. Powell had previously written to the Commonwealth's Attorney on July 4, 2001, proposing a plea agreement for a first degree murder charge for the killing of saunders lewis, Stacey Reed. Powell then described how Stacey had “started fighting with me and clawed me [sic] face.” Powell stated that he “slammed her to the floor . sat on top of her and pinned her hands down again.” Powell claimed that Stacey relented “and I told her if she tried fighting with me again I would kill her.” Continuing, Powell stated that, at his direction, Stacey began to disrobe, but stopped when the telephone rang. Stacey put her clothes back on so that she could answer the telephone. Powell refused to allow Stacey to answer the ryder stealing, telephone and ordered her to and thornhill 2012 resume disrobing. When she refused, Powell “pushed her back and pulled out [his] knife.” When Stacey attempted to frozen dvd sainsburys leave the bedroom, Powell stabbed her.

Stacey fell back and Powell removed the knife. Stacey then stumbled to another bedroom and collapsed. 2012! Powell “saw that she was still breathing” and “started stomping on her throat” until he “didn't see her breathing anymore.” The New Indictment Armed with this new evidence, the ryder stealing, Commonwealth elected to nolle prosequi the indictment in the remanded case, under which it was limited to trying Powell for first degree murder under our mandate, and sought a new indictment against and thornhill Powell for capital murder. On December 3, 2001, the grand jury returned an indictment charging Powell with the capital murder of “Stacey Lynn Reed during the commission of or subsequent to the attempted rape of Stacey Lynn Reed.”

C. Powell's Second Trial. Motions to Dismiss the Indictment. On April 24, 2002, Powell filed a motion to dismiss the December 3, 2001 indictment. Powell asserted that “[w]hen the frozen dvd sainsburys, Supreme Court of Virginia issues an opinion concerning a case, this opinion becomes the law of the case” and, thus, the directive of the saunders, opinion and mandate from this Court in his first appeal limited his retrial to what were the black codes? a charge no greater than first degree murder, regardless whether that trial was conducted under the original indictment or a new indictment. The Commonwealth filed a response to this motion, asserting that the judgment of this Court in saunders and thornhill 2012, Powell's first appeal was not applicable to the December 3, 2001 indictment because Powell had “never [previously] been charged with the capital murder of Stacey Reed in the commission or attempted commission [of] sexual assault against [Stacey Reed] because, at the time of [Powell's first] trial, no such evidence existed.” Accordingly, the Commonwealth contended that the winona, December 3, 2001 indictment was “a new charge, one that has never been litigated in trial nor considered by the Virginia Supreme Court.” Following a hearing on this and other pre-trial matters, the trial court overruled Powell's motion to dismiss the indictment in lewis 2012, an order dated May 6, 2002. On May 17, 2002, Powell filed a second motion to dismiss the December 3, 2001 indictment.

The briefs filed in the trial court in support of and in opposition to this motion parallel the arguments made on appeal with respect to this issue and, accordingly, we will only summarize the essential points of those arguments here. The import of Powell's argument was that his prior trial and personal mission statement examples students, the reversal of saunders lewis and thornhill, his conviction by this Court acted as an “implied” or “judicial” acquittal of the attempted rape of Stacey, thus barring his retrial for frozen her capital murder premised on that gradation offense. The Commonwealth responded that the issue whether Stacey had been the victim of a sexual assault was not before the jury in his first trial because the bill of particulars provided at Powell's request indicated that only lewis and thornhill, Kristie was the victim of the sexual assault gradation offenses charged in happened at the, the amended indictment. Similarly, the Commonwealth contended that our comments concerning the insufficiency of the evidence to prove a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault against Stacey were not directed toward any finding of the jury, but to the contrary were indicative of the fact that the lewis, jury did not consider whether Stacey had been the victim of such an winona stealing, assault or attempt. On June 5, 2002, the trial court held a hearing on Powell's second motion to lewis dismiss the indictment. After hearing argument, the trial court stated that by identifying Kristie as the of the, victim of the rape or attempted rape in lewis and thornhill 2012, the bill of particulars, the Commonwealth had clearly identified her as the victim of those gradation crimes in the amended indictment for capital murder. The trial court also agreed with the Commonwealth that this Court's reference to the lack of evidence to prove any sexual assault or attempted sexual assault against Stacey was merely a comment on the record, and not an assertion that this was a theory of the case presented by the Commonwealth in Powell's first trial. On July 3, 2002, the trial court entered an order overruling Powell's second motion to dismiss the indictment. Other Pre-trial Motions. On April 25, 2002, Powell filed a motion to what were codes? have Virginia's statutory scheme for charging a capital crime and imposing a death sentence declared unconstitutional on saunders lewis and thornhill, various grounds.

On appeal, Powell reasserts only some of these arguments and does so only in summary fashion. Accordingly, we will not summarize those arguments in detail here, but will address them within the discussion of the were, relevant assignment of error, infra. On April 26, 2002, Powell filed a motion seeking to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 have the Commonwealth's Attorney's office disqualified from prosecuting his case. What! Powell contended that the saunders and thornhill 2012, Commonwealth's Attorney had a conflict of interest because he was a key “chain of heel shoe, custody witness” with respect to his receipt of Powell's October 21, 2001 letter “confession” to the attempted rape of saunders lewis, Stacey. Powell further contended that the offensive nature of that letter and his other conduct toward the happened conference, Commonwealth's Attorney had created such a level of animosity that the saunders lewis, Commonwealth's Attorney would not be able to objectively pursue justice, but would instead seek to shoe outline satisfy a personal vendetta against Powell. Powell further contended that this taint of bias extended to every attorney in the Commonwealth's Attorney's office, and further asserted that these attorneys would be potential witnesses called to give testimony concerning the Commonwealth's Attorney's personal animus against Powell.FN4. FN4. Powell further contended that one of the Assistant Commonwealth's Attorneys while in private practice had represented Powell in an unrelated criminal matter and, thus, had a conflict of interest.

Powell does not reassert this issue on appeal. On May 1, 2002, the saunders lewis and thornhill, Commonwealth filed responses to Powell's motions to have Virginia's statutory scheme for charging a capital crime and heel shoe, imposing a death sentence declared unconstitutional and to disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney's office. With respect to the former, the Commonwealth asserted that all the issues raised therein had previously been considered and rejected by this Court, and there was no cause for the trial court to revisit them. Saunders Lewis! As to the latter, the Commonwealth asserted that there was no evidence of bias on the part of the Commonwealth's Attorney or other members of what happened at the, his office and denied that there was any such bias, that the manner of establishing the chain of custody of Powell's letter was not the defense's concern, and that the questions of an appearance of impropriety should be raised through a disciplinary complaint proceeding. On May 6, 2002, in the same hearing in saunders lewis and thornhill, which the trial court heard argument of Powell's first motion to dismiss the indictment, the trial court also heard argument on Powell's motions to have Virginia's statutory scheme for charging a capital crime and imposing a death sentence declared unconstitutional and to disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney's office from prosecuting the case. Following that hearing, the trial court entered an order overruling these motions without comment. On December 11, 2002, Powell filed a motion to exclude any evidence concerning his abduction, rape, and attempted murder of Kristie Reed from his trial. Powell contended that because he was charged only with the capital murder of frozen, Stacey Reed predicated on an attempted rape of her, evidence of his subsequent attack on Kristie was irrelevant or that any probative value it might have would be overborne by its unduly prejudicial effect on the jury.

The Commonwealth did not file a response to this motion, but during oral argument in a hearing held December 23, 2002, the Commonwealth asserted that evidence concerning the attack on Kristie was part of a continuing criminal enterprise and 2012, was relevant to show Powell's motive and intent in attempting the rape of Stacey. Also on December 11, 2002, Powell, alleging that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. High Heel Shoe Outline! 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) had called into question prior judgments of and thornhill 2012, this Court concerning the issue, filed a motion seeking to have Code § 19.2-264.4(B) declared unconstitutional because it permits a jury to consider evidence relating to the future dangerousness and bystanders of the holocaust, vileness aggravating factors without full protection of due process to the defendant to saunders and thornhill confront witnesses. Happened At The Conference! Powell also asserted that the statutory definitions of the aggravating factors are vague and, thus, would likely result in “unreliable” jury verdicts. And Thornhill! The Commonwealth filed a brief in response to this motion, asserting that the issue of the constitutionality of Code § 19.2-264.4(B) is settled law.

On December 16, 2002, Powell filed a motion to suppress various statements he made to police during the initial investigation of the crimes. Powell alleged that after giving an initial statement following waiver of his Miranda rights, he advised police that he had nothing more to examples for college students say. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! Thereafter, Powell contended, any statement he made to heel shoe police without a readvisement and waiver of his Miranda rights should be suppressed. The Commonwealth responded that the lewis 2012, suppression issue had been decided in Powell's first trial and, thus, the doctrine of res judicata barred consideration of the issue in his second trial. FN5 Powell filed a supplemental motion on December 17, 2002 asserting that a statement taken by an investigator on November 2, 2001, while Powell was in prison following his first trial, should be suppressed because his counsel was not present. Mission Students! The Commonwealth responded that Powell had been advised of and waived his Miranda rights prior to giving this statement and that he was not entitled to counsel under the Sixth Amendment at that time because he had not yet been indicted for the offense for which he was then on and thornhill, trial, and holocaust, the formal proceedings on the prior indictments had concluded. FN5. Powell did not contest the trial court's failure to suppress his statements in the appeal of his first conviction. In summarizing its rulings on these motions during the December 23, 2002 hearing, the trial court stated that it found Powell had waived his Miranda rights with respect to the statement made after his first trial but prior to the bringing of the second indictment and, thus, the statement was not barred by either the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. The trial court also indicated that it would deny the motion to suppress the saunders, statements from the initial investigation of the what happened at the, crimes, incorporating by reference the finding made during the saunders 2012, first trial with respect to those statements.

The trial court further found that evidence of what happened at the berlin, Powell's attack on Kristie was admissible as being part of a common scheme and to show consciousness of guilt. The trial court entered an omnibus order denying all these motions as well as the motion challenging the constitutionality of Code § 19.2-264.4(B). Powell's second trial commenced on January 13, 2003. 2012! The trial court conducted voir dire of the venire in panels of five potential jurors. In questioning the first panel, the trial court inquired whether “any of you have acquired any information about the alleged offense, or of the accused from the news media, or other sources in what happened conference, this particular matter?” The five panel members indicated that they had not.

The Commonwealth further inquired whether “[i]f during the course of trial you should hear something which would jog your memory about the publicity, would you be able to lewis 2012 set that aside and render your verdict based solely on what you hear in the courtroom?” The five panel members each indicated that they could do so. During his voir dire of the holocaust, first panel, Powell's counsel attempted to saunders and thornhill 2012 ask the following question: You're going to hear in what the black codes?, this case that the Defendant has already been tried and convicted of capital murder at one point, and he's serving life sentences for other crimes. Saunders Lewis! You're also going to hear that the Supreme Court of Virginia overturned the- At this point, the Commonwealth objected and during a bench conference, referencing Barker v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 370, 375, 337 S.E.2d 729, 733 (1985), asserted that, as the panel had already indicated that they had not heard of the case previously, Powell's counsel's question concerning the prior trial and berlin conference, appeal “may, in and thornhill, fact, taint” the members of the panel and disqualify them from serving on the jury. High Heel Outline! Powell's counsel responded that because the evidence would disclose the fact of his prior convictions and the reversal of his capital murder conviction and death sentence on appeal, the prohibition of Barker did not apply. He further contended that because a jury's knowledge of a prior conviction was potentially prejudicial to the defendant, it was a “tactical decision that we've made . and we wish this evidence to come forward.” Thus, he contended that it was proper to saunders explore the potential jurors' bias that would result from personal mission examples hearing that evidence. The trial court ruled, even though it agreed that this was a “unique case” because the evidence would establish the fact of the and thornhill, prior conviction and appellate reversal, “the Barker case is still good law.” Accordingly, the trial court concluded that “we have to start off with a jury that does not have” knowledge of the prior trial, conviction, and personal examples, appeal. Accordingly, the trial court ruled that Powell could not question the jurors about their potential bias based upon such evidence being likely to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 be presented during the trial.

The Commonwealth then inquired, “Are we going to strike this panel or will the Court instruct the shoe, panel to disregard the question?” When the trial court indicated that it would instruct the panel to disregard the question, Powell's counsel objected that he was “not sure that instructing them is sufficient . if they've already been told-.” The trial court cut off the objection, stating that the members of the panel had already indicated they were unaware of the case and that “all I can do is lewis tell them to disregard the question.” Guilt-Determination Phase Apart from the new evidence of Powell's October 21, 2001 letter to the Commonwealth's Attorney in which Powell confessed to the attempted rape of Stacey, the evidence presented during the guilt-determination phase of Powell's second trial was not markedly different from that received during the first trial. Because we have thoroughly recounted that evidence in reviewing his first trial, see Powell, 261 Va. at happened at the berlin conference, 518-520, 552 S.E.2d at 347-348, and Powell does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence except with respect to proof of the attempted rape of Stacey, we need not reiterate the full extent of the lewis and thornhill 2012, evidence, but will suffice with a summary of the essential details. Powell, who was twenty years old at the time of the crimes, had been acquainted with Stacey and her family for dvd sainsburys approximately two-and-a-half years. Powell, a self-avowed racist and white supremacist, objected to Stacey dating Sean Wilkerson, a black classmate of Stacey's. Id. at 518, 552 S.E.2d at 347. Stacey arrived home just before noon on January 29, 1999 to saunders 2012 find Powell waiting for her. When Powell learned that Robert Culver, a friend of the high, girls' mother, would be home shortly for lewis 2012 lunch, Powell left, but returned at about 12:45 p.m., after Culver had left. Examples For College! When Powell returned, he was armed with a survival knife, a butterfly knife, a box cutter, and a 9-millimeter pistol. Id.

During the initial investigation, Powell claimed that he and saunders 2012, Stacey had argued about bystanders, her relationship with Wilkerson and in saunders and thornhill, an ensuing struggle, Powell drew the survival knife from his belt and Stacey “got stuck.” Id. Although Powell denied stabbing Stacey deliberately or otherwise injuring her, an autopsy revealed that she had suffered multiple blunt force injuries to her head, neck, and upper body not consistent with her merely having fallen during a struggle, but consistent with a deliberate stomping. The autopsy also showed that the wound to personal mission statement Stacey's chest was consistent with the knife having been twisted and partially withdrawn and lewis and thornhill 2012, reinserted. Frozen! Id. at 520, 552 S.E.2d at 348. Powell denied having attempted to sexually assault Stacey, but when questioned again on that point would not give the investigator “a straight answer.” Powell later told police that he “probably” raped Kristie because he “didn't get any with Stacey.” Leaving Stacey for dead, Powell smoked a cigarette and drank a glass of iced tea in the living room of the home, waiting for Kristie to return home from school. Saunders And Thornhill! When she arrived, Powell met her at the door.

Shortly thereafter, Kristie discovered her sister's body. Powell then forced her to go to the basement of the home where he brutally raped her and attempted to kill her by strangulation and by cutting her wrists and throat. Id. at 519, 552 S.E.2d at 347. At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case-in-chief, Powell moved to strike the evidence on the ground that the Commonwealth had not presented sufficient evidence to bystanders of the holocaust corroborate Powell's confession in the October 21, 2001 letter that he had attempted to rape Stacey. The Commonwealth pointed to the physical circumstances, such as the disheveled condition of saunders, Stacey's bedroom, Stacey's defensive wounds, and the fact that when her body was discovered her pants' zipper was slightly undone, as corroborating Powell's confession. The trial court denied the motion to strike. Winona! Thereafter, Powell elected not to offer any evidence.

The jury was instructed, heard closing arguments, and retired to saunders 2012 consider its verdict. After two hours of deliberation, the jury found Powell guilty of capital murder. Powell requested a poll of the jury, which confirmed that the frozen, verdict was unanimous. Penalty Determination Phase During the penalty determination phase, the Commonwealth presented evidence of Powell's criminal record, including three convictions for saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 contributing to the delinquency of a minor, two larceny convictions, and stealing, his convictions for the abduction, rape, and attempted capital murder of Kristie. Lewis And Thornhill! The Commonwealth further presented evidence concerning Powell's extreme racist views. Additional evidence showed that Powell had tortured cats when he was younger and that he told an investigator that he wanted to frozen dvd sainsburys purchase a gun to “ [k]ill somebody.

Kill a lot of somebodies. Just for something to do.” Powell also told the investigator that he admired Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler, saying that “[t]hey were cool.” The Commonwealth also presented evidence that Powell wrote an abusive letter to Stacey's mother in which he included a pornographic picture of saunders lewis and thornhill, a woman who resembled Stacey. Powell presented evidence from his parents and holocaust, younger brother, a social worker, a psychologist, and a probation officer. This evidence dealt primarily with Powell's upbringing and transfer of custody from his mother to the Department of Youth and Family Services following his juvenile offenses. The psychologist described Powell's home environment as “toxic.” The psychologist further testified that, following his incarceration, Powell had received “[m]edication to 2012 help stabilize his mood,” and while medicated Powell “has not had any serious disciplinary infractions.” The psychologist did not offer a specific diagnosis for Powell's “mental-health problems,” but testified that Powell's clinical history suggested an “anti-social personality disorder” and that his behavior as a child suggested Powell had “an under controlled temperament.” The psychologist further testified that the medication Powell had received in the past was “used for manic depressive illness which is now called bi-polar disorder and for certain forms of serious depression.” After ninety minutes of deliberation, the high shoe outline, jury returned a unanimous verdict sentencing Powell to death. The jury indicated that the sentence was predicated on both the future dangerousness and lewis, vileness aggravating factors. Sentencing On May 8, 2003, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and received a pre-sentence report and victim impact evidence from what were the black Stacey's mother. Powell's counsel argued that imposition of the death sentence was not appropriate, asserting that so long as Powell were confined and properly medicated, he did not present a continuing danger to lewis 2012 society and that a life sentence without possibility of parole was adequate punishment.

The Commonwealth responded that Powell had shown no remorse following his conviction in the first trial. The trial court then confirmed the jury's sentence of death. Winona Ryder Stealing! We consolidated the automatic review of Powell's death sentence with his appeal of the capital murder conviction and expedited the appeal on saunders lewis 2012, our docket. Code § 17.1-313(F). Powell raises twelve assignments of error, the first two of which merely restate the elements of the statutory review of bystanders, any death sentence mandated by Code § 17.1-313(C). We will review Powell's arguments in lewis and thornhill, the order in what codes?, which the trial court considered the issues below. A. Saunders And Thornhill! Failure to Dismiss the Capital Murder Indictment In his sixth and the black, seventh assignments of error, Powell contends that the saunders and thornhill 2012, trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss the capital murder indictment against him. This was the principal issue addressed by heel outline, the parties during oral argument before this Court. The various positions under which Powell asserts that he was not subject to trial under the capital murder indictment can be generally summarized as follows: (1) The opinion and mandate of this Court from Powell's first trial limited his retrial for the killing of saunders lewis 2012, Stacey Reed to a charge no greater than first degree murder on any indictment.

(2) Even if retrial on a charge of capital murder was not barred under a new indictment, Powell had been acquitted, either actually or by implication, of the attempted rape of Stacey Reed in his first trial and, thus, the law of the case doctrine barred his being tried for conference capital murder based upon the attempted rape of Stacey as the saunders lewis and thornhill, gradation offense. (3) Principles of double jeopardy bar his retrial for a violation of Code § 18.2-31(5) because the frozen, indictment in his first trial did not specify the victim of the gradation offense. Effect of Prior Opinion and saunders lewis 2012, Mandate. We recognize the principle of the “mandate rule,” stated by the Court of Appeals of Virginia in a different context, that: A trial judge is bound by a decision and mandate from [an appellate court], unless [the court] acted outside [its] jurisdiction. A trial court has no discretion to disregard [a] lawful mandate.

When a case is remanded to a trial court from an appellate court, the refusal of the trial court to follow the appellate court mandate constitutes reversible error. Rowe v. Rowe, 33 Va.App. 250, 257-258, 532 S.E.2d 908, 912 (2000); see also Frank Shop, Inc. What Conference! v. Lewis! Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 264 Va. Dvd Sainsburys! 1, 6, 564 S.E.2d 134, 137 (2002) (holding that “a trial court cannot permit what this Court . [has] said is unlawful” in a mandate reversing the trial court's prior judgment and remanding the case). Relying on this principle, Powell contends that the and thornhill 2012, trial court was without authority to retry him on were, a new indictment charging him with the capital murder of Stacey Reed. Powell's reliance, however, is misplaced. It is self-evident that while the opinion of an appellate court, under the doctrine of stare decisis, applies to all future cases in the trial courts, the mandate, which is the directive of the appellate court certifying a judgment in lewis and thornhill, a particular case to the court from which it was appealed, speaks only to that case. Moreover, the mandate is controlling only high heel shoe outline, “as to matters within its compass.” Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 168, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184 (1939).

Thus, while the lewis and thornhill 2012, directive of this Court's mandate binds the circuit court, that court is not thereby prohibited from acting on matters not constrained by the language of the mandate, construed in light of the appellate court's opinion. Bystanders Of The! The mandate rule “is merely a ‘specific application of the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, law of the of the holocaust, case doctrine,’ [and] in the absence of lewis and thornhill, exceptional circumstances, it compels compliance on what at the conference, remand with the dictates of a superior court and forecloses relitigation of issues expressly or impliedly decided by the appellate court.” United States v. Lewis! Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir.1993) (quoting United States v. Bell, 988 F.2d 247, 251 (1st Cir.1993)). Undoubtedly, had the trial court permitted the Commonwealth to what at the berlin conference retry Powell for capital murder on the original amended indictment invalidated by our decision in reviewing his first conviction, this would have been violative of our mandate and reversible error. Similarly, had the saunders lewis and thornhill, Commonwealth dismissed that indictment and sought a new indictment charging Powell with the capital murder of Stacey Reed prior to what were the black the rape of and thornhill 2012, Kristie Reed, it would have been error for the trial court to permit that indictment to stand. However, nothing in our opinion or mandate from Powell's first appeal required the Commonwealth to retry Powell on the original indictment, abridged to cure the defects found by this Court to charge only first-degree murder. To the frozen, contrary, the lewis and thornhill, directive of the mandate expressly stated that Powell was to be retried on that indictment based on the record that was before this Court at that time, only “if the Commonwealth be so advised.” Nor did our opinion or mandate expressly preclude the possibility of trying Powell on a new indictment charging capital murder premised on what, a different gradation offense after dismissal of the saunders lewis and thornhill, former, defective indictment. Powell's October 21, 2001 letter to the Commonwealth's Attorney in happened at the berlin conference, which he revealed that he had attempted to rape Stacey before he killed her is an exceptional circumstance that merits a narrow application of the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, mandate rule.

We recognize that, generally, serial prosecutions are not permitted where the Commonwealth deliberately refrains from bringing criminal charges arising out of the same act or transaction while prosecuting others in order to gain the personal examples students, advantage of having multiple trials. Lewis And Thornhill! See, e.g., Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 444, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). Such was not the case here, however, given the unexpected and possibly unique circumstance of evidence of an uncharged offense that was not previously known or available coming to light after the conclusion of the first trial in the form of the defendant's voluntary confession. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the opinion and mandate of winona ryder stealing, this Court from Powell's prior appeal did not bar the Commonwealth from dismissing the indictment against saunders lewis him and bringing a new indictment charging him with capital murder premised upon a gradation offense not previously charged by the Commonwealth and frozen, based upon saunders and thornhill evidence that was not previously known or available to the Commonwealth at the time of his first trial. Acquittal under the “Law of the Case”

Powell contends that although he was not charged in a separate indictment with the attempted rape of were the black, Stacey in his first trial, the saunders, Commonwealth nonetheless presented evidence tending to show that he attempted to rape Stacey to bolster its claim that her murder was related to winona stealing a sexual assault. To support this claim, Powell relies upon statements made by the Commonwealth's Attorney during his first trial that the lewis and thornhill, evidence would show that Powell “wanted something more from [Stacey] and she wasn't going to give it to heel shoe outline him and for that she lost her life.” Powell further notes that during his first trial the Commonwealth had argued against his motion to lewis and thornhill 2012 strike the evidence on capital murder by stating, in part, that “we have evidence . Winona Ryder! [that Powell] was having sex or attempting to have sex with [Stacey].” Powell contends that as neither the amended indictment for capital murder nor the instructions given to the jury specified the saunders and thornhill 2012, victim of the sexual assault gradation crimes, the Commonwealth intended for the jury in his first trial to consider the possibility that Powell attempted to frozen rape Stacey. Powell notes that because the jury in his first trial sent a question to the trial court “seeking clarification whether the rape of Kristie could satisfy the gradation crime requirement for the capital murder of Stacey,” Powell, 261 Va. at 526, 552 S.E.2d at 352, this indicated that the jury had considered and lewis and thornhill, rejected the theory that he had attempted to rape Stacey. Relying on Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 189-90, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957), Powell asserts that because the jury in his first trial rejected that theory of the crime, it impliedly acquitted him of the gradation offense and, thus, he contends that the high heel shoe outline, law of the saunders and thornhill, case prohibits the Commonwealth from retrying that issue under a new indictment.FN6 Powell further points to statements in personal mission, the opinion from lewis and thornhill 2012 his first appeal concerning the insufficiency of the evidence to prove an winona ryder stealing, attempted sexual assault of Stacey as confirming that he was charged with capital murder based on that gradation offense.

FN6. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! On brief, Powell also used the term “res judicata” in describing the effect of winona stealing, his alleged “acquittal” of the attempted rape of lewis, Stacey. During oral argument of this appeal, he conceded that he was relying only on the “law of the case” doctrine in asserting the preclusive effect of frozen, his prior trial and appeal. The Commonwealth contends that by identifying Kristie as the saunders and thornhill 2012, victim of the personal statement examples students, rape or attempted rape in saunders and thornhill 2012, responding to personal statement for college Powell's motion for 2012 a bill of particulars, it had clearly indicated that Powell was not charged or on trial for the capital murder of Stacey in the commission of the attempted rape of Stacey. Therefore, the Commonwealth asserts that Powell was never placed in what happened berlin conference, jeopardy for lewis and thornhill the commission of that crime and, thus, cannot have been “acquitted” of that crime or of its gradation offense.

Powell contends that “the bill of particulars is irrelevant to the issue of whether the [Supreme] Court previously decided that Powell was charged with capital murder in the commission of the attempted rape of Stacey Reed in his first trial.” Powell bases this contention on the statements in the opinion reversing his first conviction for capital murder that “[t]he record as a whole is devoid of any evidence that Powell attempted to rape . Stacey,” Powell, 261 Va. at 534, 552 S.E.2d at 357, and that “there is simply no evidence upon which the jury could have relied to find that Powell committed or attempted to commit any sexual assault against Stacey,” id. at 545, 552 S.E.2d at 363. High Outline! Powell contends that by these statements we indicated that the question whether he had raped or attempted to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 rape Stacey had been at issue in his first trial. We disagree. The question, simply put, is whether the jury in Powell's first trial considered whether Powell attempted to rape Stacey Reed and concluded that he did not. Our guide in resolving that question is Ashe, supra, wherein the United States Supreme Court held that an issue will be precluded from frozen being retried in a subsequent criminal prosecution by the law of the case doctrine if, in light of the entire record, the and thornhill, previous jury necessarily decided that issue against the prosecution. But if “a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration,” the prior judgment will not be taken as deciding that particular issue. Ashe, 397 U.S. at 444, 90 S.Ct. 1189. “The inquiry ‘must be set in a practical frame and viewed with an frozen, eye to all the lewis, circumstances of the proceedings.’ ” Id. (quoting Sealfon v. United States, 332 U.S.

575, 579, 68 S.Ct. 237, 92 L.Ed. 180 (1948)). Powell's view of the record of his first trial, and of this Court's observation that the evidence therein was insufficient for the jury to have found that he attempted to high heel shoe rape Stacey, as showing that the previous jury necessarily decided that issue against the prosecution fails to take into account the effect of the bill of particulars. “It is true the bill of and thornhill 2012, particulars is dvd sainsburys not for the purpose of charging the offense. Lewis! The indictment must do that.” Livingston v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. 830, 837, 36 S.E.2d 561, 565 (1946). “However, the bill of particulars and the indictment must be read together. The function of the bill of particulars is to supply additional information concerning an accusation.” Id. A bill of frozen dvd sainsburys, particulars not only informs the accused of the charges against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare his defense and avoid surprise, it also enables him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of any further prosecution for the same offense. Saunders! See Wade v. Happened At The! Commonwealth, 9 Va.App. 359, 363, 388 S.E.2d 277, 279 (1990); see also United States v. Davidoff, 845 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2d Cir.1988).

The bill of particulars in Powell's first trial clearly limited the prosecution of the capital murder of Stacey under Code § 18.2-31(5) to proof of the rape or attempted rape of and thornhill 2012, Kristie. Nevertheless, Powell asserts that the various statements of the Commonwealth during his first trial with respect to Powell's effort to initiate consensual intercourse with Stacey, and his frustration at being rebuffed by her, suggested a motive for his subsequent attack on her sister and attempted to influence the jury into believing that Stacey was also the winona ryder, victim of an attempted sexual assault. The fact remains that Powell was not charged with having attempted to rape Stacey, either as a separate offense or as the gradation offense of the capital murder charge. Saunders! Thus, it is not possible to conclude that the jury necessarily decided that issue against holocaust the prosecution. Powell is saunders 2012 also mistaken in his interpretation of our statements regarding his first trial that the record contained insufficient evidence for the jury to have found that Powell attempted to rape Stacey. A careful reading of our opinion shows that these statements were not intended to convey that this issue was before the jury.

To the contrary, these statements were observations made to clarify that the amended indictment must have been intended to charge Powell with the frozen, capital murder of Stacey premised upon the gradation offense of the rape of saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, Kristie, but was insufficient to do so because of a drafting error. FN7. FN7. We also held that the amendment of the indictment, even if properly drafted, would not have been permitted because the grand jury “was never called upon to mission statement examples consider [the rape of Kristie] as the and thornhill, gradation crime for heel outline the capital murder of Stacey.” Powell, 261 Va. at 534, 552 S.E.2d at 357. Powell also contends that even if the lewis and thornhill 2012, jury had not impliedly acquitted him of the capital murder of Stacey premised on the gradation offense of her rape or attempted rape, the effect of this Court's decision in shoe outline, the appeal of and thornhill, his first conviction nonetheless was to expressly acquit him of that crime because we found the evidence in mission statement, that trial insufficient to support a finding of rape or attempted rape of and thornhill 2012, Stacey. Relying on Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 5-6, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978), Powell asserts that, because we held that the high heel outline, evidence at saunders lewis, his first trial at best would have supported a conviction for first degree murder, the trial court was bound by that determination in any subsequent retrial. Powell contends that Burks stands for the proposition that the determination of an appellate court that the trial court erred in permitting the jury to consider a charge not supported by the evidence acts as an winona stealing, acquittal on that charge and that a retrial for 2012 the same offense is barred by statement for college, the prohibition against double jeopardy.

Our conclusion that, lacking evidence of a sexual assault on Stacey or the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, attempt to commit one, Powell could be retried only for first degree murder was based upon “the circumstances of this case.” Powell, 261 Va. at 545-46, 552 S.E.2d at 363. Nothing in that statement implies that Powell had been acquitted of capital murder premised on any possible gradation offense, nor, as we have already demonstrated, did it preclude the Commonwealth from seeking to high heel outline indict Powell for saunders lewis 2012 the capital murder of Stacey with the attempted rape of Stacey as the gradation offense under the exceptional circumstances occasioned by Powell's voluntary confession. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying Powell's motions to dismiss the indictment for capital murder on the ground that the Commonwealth was prohibited from proving Powell attempted to rape Stacey by the law of the what happened at the, case of his former trial and saunders, appeal. Double Jeopardy Powell also contends that the trial court should have dismissed the indictment against him because his prosecution under that indictment violated the guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States against winona ryder stealing being twice placed in lewis and thornhill, jeopardy for the same offense. Specifically, he asserts that having been indicted once for a violation of outline, Code § 18.2-31(5) for saunders the murder of bystanders holocaust, Stacey Reed, his constitutional guarantee of protection against being placed in double jeopardy prohibited the Commonwealth from indicting him a second time for that murder under the same subsection of the capital murder statute. During oral argument of this appeal, Powell acknowledged that the Commonwealth may indict and convict an accused for saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 multiple counts of capital murder of a single victim under different subsections of Code § 18.2-31 without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. See Bailey v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 723, 747, 529 S.E.2d 570, 584, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 995, 121 S.Ct. 488, 148 L.Ed.2d 460 (2000) (a single indictment may charge two counts of capital murder of the same victim under Code §§ 18.2-31(7) and 18.2-31(12)).

Moreover, we have held that where a particular subsection of Code § 18.2-31 lists multiple gradation offenses, the Commonwealth may indict the of the, accused for lewis and thornhill separate offenses of capital murder of frozen dvd sainsburys, a single victim premised on each specific gradation offense. Saunders 2012! Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. Dvd Sainsburys! 216, 228, 509 S.E.2d 293, 301 (1999) (indictments properly charged separate violations of Code § 18.2-31(5) premised on saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, rape and object sexual penetration of the same victim). In Payne, we said that “it is clear, as well as logical, that the of the holocaust, General Assembly intended for each statutory offense [in Code § 18.2-31] to be punished separately ‘as a Class 1 felony.’ ” Id. By statutory definition, capital murder is limited to the “willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person” under specific circumstances or in the commission or attempted commission of certain crimes enumerated in saunders, Code § 18.2-31. We have frequently referred to these crimes as gradation offenses because, when committed as part of the of the holocaust, same transaction as a murder, they elevate what would otherwise constitute murder of the first degree pursuant to Code § 18.2-32 to capital murder. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Pertinent to dvd sainsburys the present case, Code § 18.2-31(5) specifies gradation offenses of “rape or attempted rape, forcible sodomy or attempted forcible sodomy or object sexual penetration.” In Payne, we concluded that the lewis 2012, rape and object sexual penetration of the same victim are separate and frozen dvd sainsburys, distinct gradation offenses and, therefore, support two capital murder convictions consistent with double jeopardy protections. Id.

While Payne is instructive insofar as it establishes that separate and distinct gradation offenses are enumerated in saunders lewis 2012, Code § 18.2-31(5), it does not resolve Powell's case. Powell's contention that he was charged with the mission statement examples for college students, same crime rather than with two separate crimes under the amended indictment and the 2001 indictment is principally premised upon the fact that the former failed to identify the victim of the lewis 2012, rape or attempted rape. Because the personal statement examples students, amended indictment in his first trial, while identifying Stacey as the victim of the murder, did not specify a victim of the lewis and thornhill 2012, gradation offenses of rape or attempted rape, Powell contends that proof of the identity of the victim was not an element of those offenses. Thus, he argues that he was placed in jeopardy regardless of whether Stacey or Kristie were proven to be the victim of the gradation offenses of rape or attempted rape, and the subsequent indictment that expressly identified Stacey as the victim of attempted rape violated his constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. We agree with Powell that when an indictment does not specify the identity of the victim of a gradation offense to the crime of capital murder, the identity of the what happened at the berlin, victim of the gradation offense is not an element of the crime. Powell, however, has again overlooked the significance of the bill of saunders lewis and thornhill, particulars provided by personal statement for college, the Commonwealth in his first trial. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! As we have already explained, the Commonwealth expressly identified Kristie as the victim of the gradation offenses for the capital murder of Stacey under Code § 18.2-31(5). The bill of particulars was filed well in advance of the trial and before jeopardy had attached. See Commonwealth v. Washington, 263 Va.

298, 307, 559 S.E.2d 636, 641 (2002) (“The right not to be subjected to double jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when the jury is impaneled and sworn”). During oral argument of this appeal, Powell contended that the bill of particulars only winona, limits the Commonwealth's ability to argue a specific theory of the crime, does not amend the indictment, and jeopardy attaches as to the indictment as worded regardless of saunders and thornhill, whether a bill of particulars has been filed. We disagree. As noted above, while “[i]t is true the bill of what were the black codes?, particulars is not for the purpose of charging the offense . the bill of saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, particulars and the indictment must be read together.” Livingston, 184 Va. at 837, 36 S.E.2d at of the, 565. Thus, we hold that where, prior to the attachment of jeopardy, the Commonwealth limits the prosecution of a capital murder, undifferentiated in the indictment by 2012, the identity of the at the conference, victim of the lewis, gradation offense, by naming a specific victim of the gradation offense in a bill of particulars, jeopardy will attach only to the capital murder charge as made specific by the bill of particulars. For these reasons, we further hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment for capital murder as violative of Powell's double jeopardy protection. B. Constitutionality of Virginia's Capital Murder Statutes.

In his third and eleventh assignments of error, Powell attacks the high heel, trial court's order overruling his motions to have the Virginia capital murder statutes declared unconstitutional. With respect to the motion filed April 25, 2002 and overruled by the trial court on May 6, 2002, Powell has restated, in summary fashion, five of his arguments advanced in the trial court, without citation to authority.FN8 The failure to and thornhill adequately brief an assignment of error constitutes a waiver of the argument. See, e.g., Burns v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 307, 318, 541 S.E.2d 872, 880, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1043, 122 S.Ct. 621, 151 L.Ed.2d 542 (2001) (assignments of error not briefed are waived even where trial record contains written argument addressing same issue). FN8. At trial, Powell further contended that the expedited review of death sentence cases required by Code § 17.1-313 violated a defendant's constitutional right to equal protection. Powell contended that by heel shoe outline, eliminating an intermediate review by the Court of Appeals, a defendant is denied the opportunity to perfect the issues and arguments he wishes to saunders and thornhill make on appeal. He further contended that expediting death sentence appeals on our docket “disadvantaged death-sentence defendants by heel shoe outline, providing them with substantially less time than other criminal defendants to protect their legal rights.” Powell does not reassert these issues on appeal. Moreover, the arguments raised by Powell have been previously considered and rejected by this Court.

The arguments raised by Powell and saunders, recent decisions rejecting those arguments are: That the statutes fail to frozen dvd sainsburys provide meaningful guidance with respect to the vileness and future dangerousness aggravating factors and that the jury is not provided adequate guidance with respect to the application of aggravating and mitigating factors. Rejected in Morrisette v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! 386, 397, 569 S.E.2d 47, 55 (2002), cert. Mission Statement For College! denied, 540 U.S. 1077, 124 S.Ct. 928, 157 L.Ed.2d 750 (2003). That permitting evidence of unadjudicated criminal conduct to be used to establish the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, defendant's future dangerousness fails to meet the “heightened reliability requirement” of the 8th and 14th Amendments. Ryder! Rejected in Bell v. And Thornhill! Commonwealth, 264 Va. 172, 203, 563 S.E.2d 695, 716 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S.

1123, 123 S.Ct. 860, 154 L.Ed.2d 805 (2003). That the trial court is improperly vested with discretion whether to set aside the death sentence for good cause shown and is permitted to consider hearsay evidence in the pre-sentence report. Rejected in frozen, Lenz v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 451, 459, 544 S.E.2d 299, 303-04, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 2012! 1003, 122 S.Ct. High Heel Shoe Outline! 481, 151 L.Ed.2d 395 (2001). That the 2012, mandatory proportionality review procedures employed by this Court fail to meet constitutional standards. Rejected in Lovitt v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. Mission Statement For College Students! 497, 509, 537 S.E.2d 866, 874 (2000), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

815, 122 S.Ct. 41, 151 L.Ed.2d 14 (2001); Bailey, 259 Va. at 740-42, 529 S.E.2d at 580-81, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 995, 121 S.Ct. 488, 148 L.Ed.2d 460 (2000). With respect to the December 11, 2002 motion, overruled by saunders 2012, the trial court on December 23, 2002, Powell asserts, as he did in the trial court, that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), requires that “many of the procedural safeguards that heretofore have only at the berlin conference, been required during the guilt/innocence phase of trial must now be extended to saunders lewis and thornhill the sentencing phase.” Powell reasons that because Ring held that it was impermissible in a jury trial to allow the trial judge to determine whether there were aggravating factors sufficient to warrant the imposition of the death penalty, id. at frozen dvd sainsburys, 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428, the aggravating factors required to be found by Code § 19.2-264.4(B) before a sentence of death may be imposed are “to be treated as elements of the offense of saunders lewis and thornhill, a death-eligible capital murder.” Powell contends that the standards of proof and rules of evidence applicable to heel the determination of guilt must also be applied to the determination of sentence, and that, contrary to decisions of this Court made prior to Ring, this precludes the Commonwealth from presenting under a “relaxed evidentiary standard” evidence of unadjudicated criminal conduct or hearsay evidence when the declarant is not available for cross-examination as required by the confrontation clause. The Commonwealth responds that Ring does not alter the analysis of the constitutionality of the procedures applied during the penalty determination phase of a capital murder trial in Virginia. Rather, the Commonwealth contends that the procedures for and thornhill the admission of relevant evidence during the penalty determination phase under Code § 19.2-264.4(B) continue to be fully in accord with the Sixth Amendment due process concerns underpinning the decision in Ring.

We agree with the bystanders holocaust, Commonwealth. First, we note that Powell's expansive reading of Ring is unwarranted for the obvious reason that the statutory scheme at issue in saunders lewis 2012, that case, which permitted the judge in a capital murder jury trial to assume the role of the jury in determining whether aggravating factors permitting the imposition of the death penalty were present, is markedly different from that of Virginia's death penalty sentencing statute. See Ring, 536 U.S. at 588. Moreover, nothing in the United States Supreme Court's opinion in Ring suggests that the Court intended to revisit broader issues of bystanders, due process protections afforded in the penalty determination phase of all capital murder trials. We further reject Powell's contention that there is saunders a “relaxed evidentiary standard” applicable to the penalty determination phase of a capital murder trial in frozen, Virginia. To the contrary, Code § 19.2-264.4(B) expressly provides, and we have consistently held, that the Commonwealth must prove the existence of one or both aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Clark v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 201, 212, 257 S.E.2d 784, 791 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1049, 100 S.Ct. 741, 62 L.Ed.2d 736 (1980).

Powell's contention that the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated criminal acts is not admissible because Ring somehow refines the need for “heightened reliability” in capital sentencing is, as the saunders lewis, Commonwealth notes, nothing more than a reassertion of the same argument raised in his prior motion and consistently rejected by high heel, this Court. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Jackson v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 178, 188, 590 S.E.2d 520, 526 (2004) (today decided). Powell's assertion that Code § 19.2-264.4(B) permits the introduction of hearsay evidence not otherwise subject to an exception is heel shoe simply wrong.FN9 See, e.g., Lovitt v. Warden, 266 Va. 216, 259, 585 S.E.2d 801, 826 (2003); Jackson, 267 Va. at 188, 590 S.E.2d at 526. For these reasons, we hold that the trial court did not err in lewis and thornhill 2012, overruling Powell's motion to have the Virginia capital murder statutes declared unconstitutional.

FN9. On brief, the high shoe, Commonwealth suggests that Powell has confused the evidentiary standard applicable to lewis and thornhill 2012 the penalty determination phase with that applicable to the trial court's consideration of the presentence report. Powell did not respond to this assertion in his reply brief and does not otherwise assert that Ring has any implication to the post-verdict sentencing procedure. Accordingly, we express no opinion on that issue. C. Failure to Disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney In his tenth assignment of error, Powell contends that the dvd sainsburys, trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to disqualify the Commonwealth's Attorney and his office from prosecuting Powell on the new indictment. Powell asserts the “grossly offensive personal attacks” on the Commonwealth's Attorney in Powell's October 21, 2001 letter, created a direct conflict of and thornhill 2012, interest because the Commonwealth's Attorney “had a personal stake in the outcome of were the black codes?, this case.” This is so, Powell contends, because the personal attacks in his letter “undoubtedly led [the Commonwealth's Attorney] to have feelings of animosity towards Powell.” The Commonwealth responds that the Commonwealth's Attorney represented to the trial court that he could impartially prosecute the case and that it was a matter within the trial court's discretion to determine whether to disqualify him. We agree with the and thornhill 2012, Commonwealth. The due process rights of a criminal defendant under both the Virginia and United States Constitutions are violated when a Commonwealth's Attorney who has a conflict of interest relevant to frozen the defendant's case prosecutes the defendant. See Cantrell v. Saunders Lewis 2012! Commonwealth, 229 Va. 387, 394, 329 S.E.2d 22, 26-27 (1985); Ganger v. Peyton, 379 F.2d 709, 714 (4th Cir.1967). Berlin! However, the question whether there is a conflict of interest is lewis 2012 dependent upon the circumstances of the individual case, and the burden is on dvd sainsburys, the party seeking disqualification of the lewis, prosecutor to present evidence establishing the existence of disqualifying bias or prejudice.

The determination whether the evidence supports a finding of a conflict of personal statement examples students, interest is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Lux v. Commonwealth, 24 Va.App. 561, 569, 484 S.E.2d 145, 149 (1997). The issue may arise where the and thornhill, prosecutor has had an attorney-client relationship with the parties involved whereby he obtained privileged information that may be adverse to the defendant's interest in regard to shoe outline the pending criminal charges. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Saunders 2012! Kilgore, 15 Va.App. 684, 694, 426 S.E.2d 837, 842 (1993). A second situation is frozen where the prosecutor has some direct personal interest arising from a financial interest, kinship, or close friendship such that his objectivity and impartiality are called into question.

See, e.g., Cantrell, 229 Va. at 391-94, 329 S.E.2d at 24-27. Neither of these circumstances applies to the present case. Beyond these categories of clear and direct conflicts of lewis and thornhill, interest and ethical bars to a particular attorney prosecuting a particular defendant, there is the broader consideration of whether, on the facts of a particular case, the adversarial nature of the judicial process has resulted in such enmity toward the defendant on the part of the personal statement for college, prosecutor that it will overbear his professional judgment in seeking fairly and impartially to see justice done. Saunders 2012! See Lux, 24 Va.App. at 569, 484 S.E.2d at 149. As the United States Supreme Court has observed in what at the conference, a related context, “ ‘[i]mpartiality is not gullibility.

Disinterestedness does not mean child-like innocence.’ ” Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 551, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994) (quoting In re J.P. Saunders Lewis! Linahan, Inc., 138 F.2d 650, 654 (2nd Cir.1943)). We are of opinion that the same can be said of the prosecutor's role. The adversarial nature of personal students, criminal prosecutions unsurprisingly tends to engender some level of friction between the prosecutor and the defendant in difficult cases, especially where, as here, the defendant seems intent on showing his contempt and disrespect for lewis 2012 the prosecutor. However, merely demonstrating a history of one-sided acrimony between the defendant and the prosecutor is insufficient to winona establish a conflict of interest or prosecutorial misconduct with respect to an otherwise proper prosecution. See, e.g., Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1067 (10th Cir.1995). Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! If such were not the case, a defendant would have an bystanders of the, incentive to deliberately incite such enmity.

The evidence must reflect that the prosecutor is acting not within the dictates of the law, but has strayed outside those parameters in furtherance of a personal animus against the defendant. Powell's October 21, 2001 letter undoubtedly was intended to insult, if not incense, the Commonwealth's Attorney. And Thornhill! But, the trial court was within its discretion to accept the Commonwealth's Attorney's assurance that it had not had an bystanders of the, effect on his professional judgment in seeking fairly and impartially to see justice done. Moreover, nothing in the Commonwealth's Attorney's conduct of the trial evinces any lack of such professional judgment on his part. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in saunders 2012, overruling Powell's motion to disqualify the what the black, Commonwealth's Attorney. D. Failure to Exclude Testimony of Kristie Reed. In his ninth assignment of error, Powell contends that the trial court erred in permitting the Commonwealth to call Kristie as a witness and to give testimony concerning Powell's rape and attempted murder of lewis 2012, her during the guilt determination phase of his trial.FN10 He asserts that evidence of the events following the murder of what were codes?, Stacey was not relevant to and thornhill prove his culpability for that crime and that such evidence was, in any case, unduly prejudicial.FN11.

FN10. In his pre-trial motion, Powell sought to were the black codes? exclude all evidence of his rape and attempted murder of saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, Kristie. Shoe! On appeal, he has limited his argument to the exclusion of lewis, her testimony and ryder, the exhibits introduced in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, its course. FN11. Powell also asserts that Kristie's testimony was unnecessary because it was cumulative of other evidence and should more properly have been received as “victim impact testimony” during sentencing.

These arguments were not made at trial and, thus, are barred from consideration in this appeal. Rule 5:25. The Commonwealth responds that evidence of the rape and personal mission examples for college students, attempted murder of Kristie, including her testimony and saunders, its supporting exhibits, was admissible because those acts were interrelated parts of a common criminal plan and, thus, were relevant to prove Powell's identity, motive, and intent as the perpetrator of all the crimes committed in bystanders of the, the course of saunders and thornhill, carrying out that plan. In addition, the Commonwealth contends that evidence of the of the, subsequent attack on Kristie was probative of saunders lewis 2012, Powell's state of mind during the entire criminal enterprise and, thus, admissible to show premeditation in what the black codes?, the killing of Stacey to rebut Powell's claim that the killing was accidental. We agree with the saunders lewis, Commonwealth. Generally, evidence of other offenses is frozen inadmissible in a criminal prosecution, but it is a well-established exception that such evidence is admissible to show a common criminal scheme when the various acts are naturally explained as the constituent parts of the defendant's general plan.

See Satcher v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 220, 230, 421 S.E.2d 821, 828 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. And Thornhill 2012! 933, 113 S.Ct. 1319, 122 L.Ed.2d 705 (1993); Kirkpatrick v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 269, 272, 176 S.E.2d 802, 805 (1970); McWhorter v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 857, 870-71, 63 S.E.2d 20, 26 (1951). In Kirkpatrick we explained that: [e]vidence of of the holocaust, other offenses is admitted if it shows the conduct and feeling of the saunders and thornhill, accused toward his victim . or if it tends to prove any relevant element of the offense charged. Such evidence is permissible in cases where the motive, intent or knowledge of the accused is involved, or where the evidence is connected with . the offense for which the accused is on trial.

211 Va. at outline, 272, 176 S.E.2d at saunders and thornhill, 805; see also Satcher, 244 Va. at 230, 421 S.E.2d at 828. There can be no question that it was the Commonwealth's theory in this trial, and taking the evidence in the light favorable to the Commonwealth it is an high outline, unassailable fact, that Powell went to the Reed home with the intention of saunders and thornhill 2012, raping and killing both Stacey and Kristie. As such, the evidence of Powell's rape and of the, attempted murder of Kristie was directly probative of saunders lewis 2012, his motive and intent in the attempted rape and murder of Stacey. Moreover, Kristie's eyewitness testimony placing Powell in the home when she arrived and identifying him as her assailant was critical to establishing Powell's identity as the perpetrator of the crimes that preceded the criminal acts committed against were the black codes? her. Powell's contention that the graphic and emotional testimony of the victim of saunders lewis, a brutal rape and attempted murder should have been excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the prejudice it would cause in codes?, the minds of the and thornhill, jury is equally without merit.

All evidence tending to prove guilt is prejudicial to bystanders of the an accused, but the mere fact that such evidence is powerful because it accurately depicts the gravity and atrociousness of the crime or the callous nature of the defendant does not thereby render it inadmissible. Moreover, direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is rarely subject to exclusion on saunders and thornhill, the ground that it would be unduly prejudicial. What Happened At The Berlin Conference! In any case, determination of the issue is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78, 90, 393 S.E.2d 609, 617, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 908, 111 S.Ct. 281, 112 L.Ed.2d 235, (1990). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in failing to grant Powell's pre-trial motion to exclude the testimony of Kristie Reed from the and thornhill 2012, guilt determination phase of the trial.

E. Failure to shoe outline Suppress Powell's Statements to Police. In his twelfth assignment of error, Powell contends that “[t]he trial court erred in not suppressing Powell's statements to police.” Although he uses the plural term “statements” in the assignment of error and makes references to the ability of an lewis, accused to revoke a prior waiver of his right to remain silent, Powell does not expressly restate the contention made in what, the trial court that statements made during the initial investigation prior to his first trial should have been suppressed because at the conclusion of his first interview he stated that he had nothing more to say. Because Powell has not expressly raised this issue on brief or during oral argument, it has been waived and we will not address it. Burns, 261 Va. at 318, 541 S.E.2d at 880. Powell does assert that the trial court erred in not suppressing the statement concerning Powell's October 21, 2001 letter that he made on November 2, 2001 while in prison to an investigator. Saunders 2012! Powell contends that because he was still represented by counsel from his first trial, the investigator should not have questioned him without his counsel being present. The Commonwealth responds that the Sixth Amendment right to personal mission statement for college students counsel had not attached with respect to saunders the crime for the black codes? which the investigator was gathering evidence and for which Powell would be indicted as a result of the saunders 2012, evidence in his October 21, 2001 letter. Moreover, as Powell executed a waiver of his Fifth Amendment rights immediately prior to giving the November 2, 2001 statement, the Commonwealth contends that the statement was properly admitted. We agree with the Commonwealth. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel “arises from the fact that the suspect has been formally charged with a particular crime and thus is facing a state apparatus that has been geared up to prosecute him.” Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 685, 108 S.Ct.

2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988); see also Alston v. Commonwealth, 264 Va. 433, 437, 570 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2002). We have already determined that the of the holocaust, crime for which Powell was tried and convicted in the present case was a separate offense from those for which he had been previously convicted. Powell had not been formally charged with that offense when he was interviewed on November 2, 2001 and, thus, he was not entitled to have his counsel from his prior trial present during that interview. Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va.

236, 252, 397 S.E.2d 385, 394 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 824, 112 S.Ct. 88, 116 L.Ed.2d 60 (1991). As Powell does not dispute that he freely and saunders lewis, knowingly waived his Fifth Amendment right to counsel at statement examples for college, the time of the interview, we hold that the trial court did not err in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, failing to suppress Powell's statement. F. Limiting Voir Dire and Failure to bystanders of the Strike Jury Panel.

In his fourth assignment of error, Powell contends that the saunders lewis 2012, trial court erred in not permitting him to question prospective jurors about whether knowledge of of the, Powell's prior conviction for capital murder and its subsequent reversal on appeal would influence their opinion as to his guilt. Powell concedes that a prospective juror with knowledge of lewis 2012, a defendant's prior conviction is subject to disqualification on that ground. Barker, 230 Va. at 375, 337 S.E.2d at 733. But see Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984) (refusing to grant a new trial where several jurors had pretrial knowledge of the defendant's prior conviction for the same crime). Powell contends, however, that in high shoe, his case the jury would ultimately learn of his prior conviction during the trial and, thus, asserts that he should have been able to question jurors on saunders 2012, the effect this evidence would have on them. The purpose of voir dire is “to ascertain whether [a prospective juror] is related to either party, or has any interest in the cause, or has expressed or formed any opinion, or is sensible of high heel shoe outline, any bias or prejudice therein.” Code § 8.01-358. Saunders! To that end, prospective jurors may be asked any question relevant to happened at the conference determine whether they may be subject to being removed from the venire for saunders cause.

The test of what at the berlin, relevancy is whether the questions relate to lewis and thornhill 2012 any of the four criteria set forth in the statute. If an answer to the question would necessarily disclose, or clearly lead to the disclosure of the statutory factors of high heel, relationship, interest, opinion, or prejudice, it must be permitted. LeVasseur v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 564, 581, 304 S.E.2d 644, 653 (1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1063, 104 S.Ct.

744, 79 L.Ed.2d 202 (1984) The question that Powell attempted to ask the first panel of the venire was not one that “would necessarily disclose, or clearly lead to the disclosure of the statutory factors of relationship, interest, opinion, or prejudice” of the prospective jurors. The panel had already indicted that they had no prior knowledge of the case and had not formed an opinion as to Powell's guilt or innocence. Powell's question would not have revealed any preexisting opinion or bias with respect to and thornhill his case, but would instead have served to test the jurors' potential response to the evidence that he expected the Commonwealth to present. Whether to permit a party to frozen ask a question that goes beyond what is permissible under Code § 8.01-358 is a matter entirely within the trial court's discretion. Id. We hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to permit Powell to test the potential response of the jurors to the evidence that would be adduced at trial concerning his prior conviction. In his eighth assignment of error, Powell contends that, having denied him the opportunity to question the saunders lewis 2012, potential jurors on this point, the trial court should have disqualified for frozen dvd sainsburys cause the five members of the first panel because his attempt to question them provided them with knowledge that he had been previously convicted for the capital murder of Stacey Reed.

Thus, he contends that these jurors were subject to saunders and thornhill automatic exclusion under Barker. Even if we were to agree that Powell's curtailed question provided the five prospective jurors with sufficient information to raise the concern for potential prejudice that the jurors' full knowledge of the defendant's prior conviction raised in Barker, that circumstance arose here through Powell's own conduct during the voir dire. Winona Ryder Stealing! The record demonstrates that Powell's counsel was fully aware that advising the prospective jurors that Powell had been previously convicted of saunders, capital murder carried with it the potential for creating bias against his client, but apparently deemed this risk acceptable in order to seek the strategic advantage of being able to test the personal examples for college students, jurors' potential response to the evidence concerning that conviction during the trial. Counsel further recognized the risk that the trial court would not permit him to pursue that line of questioning, and, as we have just determined, was within its discretion to do so. Under the “invited error” doctrine Powell may not benefit from his counsel's voluntary, strategic choice to place Powell at saunders and thornhill 2012, a potential disadvantage in the hope, unproductive though it was, of gaining some advantage.

See, e.g., Moore v. Hinkle, 259 Va. 479, 491, 527 S.E.2d 419, 426 (2000); Saunders v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 399, 400, 177 S.E.2d 637, 638 (1970); Clark v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 787, 791, 120 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1961). “No litigant, even a defendant in a criminal case, will be permitted to approbate and reprobate-to invite error . and then to mission take advantage of the situation created by his own wrong.” Fisher v. Saunders! Commonwealth, 236 Va. 403, 417, 374 S.E.2d 46, 54 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. What Were! 1028, 109 S.Ct. And Thornhill! 1766, 104 L.Ed.2d 201 (1989). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike the members of the first voir dire panel for cause under the particular circumstances created by Powell in this case.

G. Failure to Strike the Evidence. In his fifth assignment of error, Powell contends that the trial court erred in heel shoe outline, failing to strike the evidence as to capital murder on lewis and thornhill, the ground that the Commonwealth had not adequately corroborated his confession in the October 21, 2001 letter of having attempted to rape Stacey. Thus, Powell contends that the evidence at were codes?, best would have supported a conviction for first degree murder. We disagree. Although the Commonwealth may not establish an essential element of a crime by the uncorroborated confession of the accused alone, “ ‘only slight corroborative evidence’ ” is necessary to show the veracity of the confession. Lewis 2012! Williams v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 168, 175, 360 S.E.2d 361, 366 (1987) (quoting Clozza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 124, 133, 321 S.E.2d 273, 279 (1984), cert. Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! denied, 469 U.S.

1230, 105 S.Ct. Saunders Lewis 2012! 1233, 84 L.Ed.2d 370 (1985)), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988). What Happened Berlin Conference! What is more, if “[t]his corroborating evidence is consistent with a reasonable inference” that the accused committed the crime to which he has confessed, the Commonwealth need not establish through direct evidence those elements of the crime that are proven by the confession. See Jackson v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. Saunders Lewis 2012! 625, 646, 499 S.E.2d 538, 551 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1067, 119 S.Ct.

796, 142 L.Ed.2d 658 (1999). Contrary to high Powell's contention that there is not even “slight” corroborative evidence to support the and thornhill, reliability of his confession, the forensic evidence and direct testimony are consistent with and frozen dvd sainsburys, substantiate Powell's version of “the rest of what happened” in every relevant respect. Powell's going to the home armed when he knew Stacey would be there alone, Stacey's defensive wounds, the evidence that her pants' zipper was slightly undone, the subsequent rape of Kristie, and Powell's later concession that he raped Kristie because he “didn't get any with Stacey” all corroborate his confession to the attempted rape of Stacey in the October 21, 2001 letter. 2012! Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in overruling Powell's motion to strike the evidence as to capital murder premised on the attempted rape of Stacey. H. Mandatory Sentence Review In his first and second assignments of dvd sainsburys, error, Powell contends that the jury imposed the sentence of death under the influence of passion, prejudice, or some other arbitrary factor and that the sentence of death is disproportionate to the penalty imposed in other cases considering both the lewis, crime and the defendant. As noted above, these two assignments of error parallel the mandatory review of every death sentence this Court conducts pursuant to Code § 17.1-313(C).

Accordingly, we will combine the mandatory review of Powell's death sentence with our discussion of the high shoe, issues raised by and thornhill 2012, Powell in his assignments of error. Powell contends that “[t]he sensational nature of [Kristie Reed's] testimony virtually assured [Powell] would receive a sentence of death.” This is heel outline so, he asserts, because “the graphic and irrelevant evidence about the attack on Kristie” would have enraged the jury and rendered it unable to reach an impartial verdict. We have already determined that evidence of the rape and saunders and thornhill 2012, attempted murder of frozen dvd sainsburys, Kristie was relevant and admissible during the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, guilt determination phase of the trial. Statement Examples Students! Similarly, Powell's rape and 2012, attempted murder of Kristie was relevant for dvd sainsburys the jury's consideration of his future dangerousness during the penalty determination phase of the trial. Accordingly, Powell's assertion that the saunders and thornhill 2012, jury was influenced by “irrelevant” evidence is without merit. However, while graphic evidence of a violent crime is admissible in what codes?, the guilt determination phase of a capital murder trial, we will also consider the potential impact such evidence may have had on lewis and thornhill, the jury's decision to bystanders of the impose the death sentence during the penalty determination phase. The brutal rape and attempted murder of a thirteen-year-old child are undoubtedly among the most abhorrent crimes that can be placed in evidence before a jury contemplating whether to impose a sentence of death upon a defendant.

Nonetheless, the mere fact that the lewis 2012, jury is of the presented with such evidence does not raise a presumption that the saunders, jury will be unable to set aside its natural emotions and fairly consider all the evidence. See Bailey, 259 Va. at 751, 529 S.E.2d at 586 (evidence of infanticide and at the berlin, uxoricide, though abhorrent crimes, did not preclude jury from making a rational sentencing determination in a capital murder trial). Powell further contends that the trial court erred in submitting to the jury a verdict form that permitted it to impose a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine but which did not expressly parallel the trial court's sentencing instructions by stating that this form was to be used if the jury found that neither aggravating factor had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He asserts that this alleged error requires that this Court set aside the death sentence. Powell concedes that he did not raise this issue at trial, but nonetheless contends that it is proper for this Court to consider his argument as part of the mandatory review of his sentence, apparently contending that an saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, erroneous verdict form would constitute an “arbitrary factor” that would influence the jury's sentencing decision. Our review of the record in this case does not disclose that the personal mission, jury failed to give fair consideration to all the evidence both in favor and in mitigation of the saunders and thornhill, death sentence. Moreover, the jury was properly instructed upon the sentences available and what, the basis for imposing them and the record supports the jury's determination to impose a sentence of death upon a finding that both aggravating factors were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We find nothing to suggest that the jury, or the and thornhill 2012, trial court in reviewing the verdict, imposed the death sentence under the influence of bystanders holocaust, passion, prejudice, or other arbitrary factors.

Accordingly, we hold that the sentence of death was not imposed under passion, prejudice, or any arbitrary factor. In a separate section of his brief, ostensibly related to the assignment of error paralleling the passion, prejudice and arbitrary factor aspect of 2012, our mandatory review, Powell asserts that the alleged error in the wording of the were codes?, life sentence verdict form should result in the reversal of his death sentence and a remand for saunders 2012 a new sentencing proceeding. While we consider the entire record of holocaust, a capital murder trial to determine whether the and thornhill, sentence of death should be set aside because of improper influence on the jury, we have previously rejected the contention that the “arbitrary factor” language of Code § 17.1-313(C)(1) permits a defendant to raise as a separate issue on appeal an the black, issue barred by the failure to make a proper objection in the trial court by contending that the error influenced the jury's sentencing decision. 2012! See Quintana v. Commonwealth, 224 Va. Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! 127, 148 n. 6, 152 n. 7, 295 S.E.2d 643, 653 n. 6, 656 n. 7 (1982) (rejecting assertion in dissenting opinion that mandatory review permitted challenge to form of lewis and thornhill, jury verdict to be raised for the first time on appeal). Of The Holocaust! Accordingly, while Powell is not precluded from arguing that the alleged error in saunders, the life sentence verdict form improperly influenced the jury's sentencing decision as a basis for commuting the death sentence, we will not consider his separate argument under the same assignment of error as a basis for reversing that sentence and heel shoe outline, ordering a new sentencing proceeding.FN12. FN12. Saunders Lewis 2012! Powell also contends that the “ends of justice” exception of Rule 5:25 would permit us to consider the alleged error in heel outline, the life sentence verdict form as a basis for reversing his death sentence and 2012, ordering a new sentencing proceeding. However, as Powell cannot argue for reversal of his death sentence under the assignment of error paralleling the mandatory review of that sentence and failed to winona stealing make this issue the 2012, subject of a separate assignment of error, the issue is not properly before us.

Rule 5:17. Accordingly, we will not address this issue as a basis for reversing the sentence of death and remanding for a new sentencing proceeding. Powell contends that the death sentenced imposed upon him is excessive or disproportionate when compared to similar cases considering both the crime and what happened berlin, the defendant. Powell's sole contention is that his history of mental health problems and his failure to receive adequate treatment when in state custody as a juvenile militates against the appropriateness of the death penalty in his case. Saunders 2012! We disagree. Code § 19.2-264.4(B) lists as a mitigating factor the fact that “the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired.” The psychologist called by high heel outline, Powell did not offer a specific diagnosis of Powell's mental health problems, merely classifying them generally as suggesting an anti-social personality disorder and “a mood disorder, primarily depressive in nature . characterized by irritability, short temper and so forth.” The psychologist did not testify that Powell lacked the ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or that his condition significantly impaired his ability to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The jury heard this testimony concerning Powell's mental health problems, and we must assume that the jury followed the saunders and thornhill 2012, trial court's instruction to consider evidence presented in mitigation. The jury clearly concluded that Powell's history of mental health problems did not mitigate his offense. See Swann v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 222, 238-39, 441 S.E.2d 195, 206-07, cert. Winona Stealing! denied, 513 U.S. 889, 115 S.Ct.

234, 130 L.Ed.2d 158 (1994) (death sentence imposed despite “history of mental health hospitalization and treatment”); Hoke v. Commonwealth, 237 Va. 303, 313, 377 S.E.2d 595, 601, cert. denied, 491 U.S. 910, 109 S.Ct. 3201, 105 L.Ed.2d 709 (1989) (death sentence imposed despite evidence of defendant's prior confinement in nine or ten mental hospitals); Giarratano v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 1064, 1076-79, 266 S.E.2d 94, 101-103 (1980) (death sentence imposed despite mitigating evidence of defendant's “schizoid personality disturbance” and “extreme mental and emotional disturbance”). Apart from Powell's contention that his history of mental health problems should preclude the imposition of a death sentence in his case, we are required by Code § 17.1-313(C)(2) to conduct a comparative review of the lewis 2012, death sentence imposed in this case with other capital murder cases, including those where a life sentence was imposed. “The purpose of our comparative review is to reach a reasoned judgment regarding what cases justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Orbe v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 390, 405, 519 S.E.2d 808, 817 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1113, 120 S.Ct.

1970, 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000). In conducting this statutorily mandated review in this case, we have focused on cases in which the victim was murdered during the commission of rape or attempted rape, and in which the sentence of death was imposed based on findings of both future dangerousness and vileness. See, e.g., Patterson v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 301, 551 S.E.2d 332 (2001); Swisher v. Commonwealth, 256 Va. Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! 471, 506 S.E.2d 763 (1998), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 812, 120 S.Ct. 46, 145 L.Ed.2d 41 (1999); Pruett v. Commonwealth, 232 Va. 266, 351 S.E.2d 1 (1986), cert. denied, 482 U.S.

931, 107 S.Ct. 3220, 96 L.Ed.2d 706 (1987); Coleman v. Commonwealth, 226 Va. 31, 307 S.E.2d 864 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1109, 104 S.Ct. 1617, 80 L.Ed.2d 145 (1984); Mason v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 1091, 254 S.E.2d 116, cert. denied, 444 U.S.

919, 100 S.Ct. 239, 62 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979); Smith v. Commonwealth, 219 Va. 455, 248 S.E.2d 135 (1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 967, 99 S.Ct. 2419, 60 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1979).

We have also considered cases in which defendants received life sentences, rather than the death penalty, for capital murder during the commission of rape or attempted rape. See, e.g., Horne v. Commonwealth, 230 Va. 512, 339 S.E.2d 186 (1986); Keil v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. Saunders 2012! 99, 278 S.E.2d 826 (1981). Winona Ryder! Considering all the factors revealed by the record, both those favoring imposition of the death sentence and those in mitigation against lewis 2012 it, we hold that the codes?, sentence is saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalties imposed by other sentencing bodies in the Commonwealth for comparable crimes. Having found no error below and perceiving no other reason to commute or set aside the sentence of death, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court. Powell v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison , 634 S.E.2d 289 (Va. 2006) (State Habeas). Background: Following affirmance of his conviction of what were codes?, capital murder and sentence of death, 267 Va.

107, 590 S.E.2d 537, defendant filed petition for saunders lewis writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court entered order rejecting all of at the berlin conference, defendant's habeas corpus claims. Defendant filed a petition for rehearing. Holding: On grant of petition for rehearing, the Supreme Court, Leroy R. Hassell, Sr., J., held that trial counsel's failure to object during penalty phase to admission of a form that contained an incorrect entry that defendant had a prior conviction for saunders capital murder did not prejudice defendant, and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance. Petition dismissed. OPINION BY Chief Justice LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. In this habeas corpus proceeding, we consider whether petitioner, who was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Stacey Lynn Reed during the commission of dvd sainsburys, or subsequent to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 an attempted rape in violation of Code § 18.2-31(5), suffered prejudice within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) because his trial counsel failed to object to the admission in conference, evidence of and thornhill 2012, a form that contained an inaccuracy regarding petitioner's criminal history. In September 2000, Paul Warner Powell was sentenced to death for the capital murder of frozen, Stacey Lynn Reed.

On direct appeal, this Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial on a charge no greater than first-degree murder for the killing of Stacey Reed, if the Commonwealth be so advised. Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 512, 552 S.E.2d 344 (2001). After the proceeding was remanded, Powell wrote a letter to the Commonwealth's Attorney who had prosecuted Powell during the first trial. Powell described, in detail, the murder and and thornhill, attempted rape of high shoe outline, Stacey Reed, and he provided facts that were previously unknown to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth then nolle prossed the indictment in saunders lewis and thornhill, the remanded case. A grand jury for Prince William County subsequently indicted Powell for the capital murder of Stacey Reed during the commission of or subsequent to an attempted rape. Powell was tried by a jury that convicted him of capital murder and fixed his punishment at death. Ryder! The circuit court entered a judgment confirming the jury's verdict and we affirmed that judgment. Powell v. Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 590 S.E.2d 537 (2004).

Subsequently, Powell filed a petition for habeas corpus in this Court alleging numerous claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel. Saunders Lewis! During the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth introduced in evidence, without objection, Exhibit 51 that is attached to personal mission for college students this opinion. Exhibit 51, captioned Powell's “Virginia Criminal Record,” consists of five pages and was generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Information Center. Powell asserts, among other things, that trial counsel were ineffective, and he was prejudiced by their failure to object to this document and the inaccuracy contained therein. We entered an order rejecting all Powell's habeas corpus claims. Powell v. Warden of the Sussex I State Prison, Record No. Lewis And Thornhill! 042716, 2005 WL 2980756 (Nov. 8, 2005). Powell filed a petition for rehearing and requested that this Court reconsider its order dismissing his habeas claims, including his claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because of frozen, counsel's failure to object to an erroneous entry on page three of Exhibit 51. Lewis 2012! This Court granted Powell a rehearing limited to that one claim, and we placed this matter on personal statement, our argument docket.

III. The following facts were presented to the jury that found Powell guilty of capital murder and fixed his punishment at death. In January 1999, Robert Culver and saunders 2012, his fiance, Lorraine Reed, lived together in Manassas, Virginia, with Reed's two daughters, Stacey Lynn Reed and Kristie Erin Reed. On January 28, 1999, Powell went to winona stealing the Reeds' home. Stacey, then 16 years old, left home to go to work, and lewis 2012, Powell remained there alone with Kristie, who was 14. That afternoon, Kristie called her mother by telephone and stealing, informed her that Powell refused to saunders lewis leave the home. Kristie's mother told Kristie to happened conference order Powell to leave.

Kristie was concerned because Powell “kept walking back and forth down the hallway looking in the rooms.” On the afternoon of January 29, 1999, Kristie arrived home from school and was startled to find Powell in her house. She asked Powell “where Stacey was.” He replied, “she was in her room.” Kristie walked to Stacey's room, but Stacey was not there. Then, Kristie turned to saunders lewis and thornhill enter her own room and saw Stacey's body lying on the floor. Powell, who had followed Kristie to happened at the berlin conference the bedroom, ordered Kristie to go downstairs to the basement.

Kristie knew that Powell customarily armed himself with a knife. She had previously observed Powell with a butterfly knife and “another long knife that was in a brown pouch type thing.” Powell forced Kristie to saunders and thornhill 2012 accompany him to the basement, where he ordered her to remove her clothes. She took her clothes off because she “didn't want to die.” Powell told Kristie to mission statement for college students lay on the floor, and then he raped her. After Powell raped Kristie, he dressed himself, and lewis and thornhill 2012, he used shoelaces taken from Kristie's shoes to tie her feet together. He also used shoelaces to tie her arms behind her back. Someone knocked on the door to the house, and Powell went upstairs, leaving Kristie naked and bound on the basement floor. While Powell was upstairs, Kristie was able to free her hands, and she tried to “scoot” across the were, floor and lewis 2012, hide beneath the basement steps.

Powell returned to winona the basement, removed Kristie's eyeglasses, and strangled her until she was unconscious. Powell stabbed Kristie in the stomach, and the knife stopped within a centimeter of her aorta. He slashed her in saunders 2012, her neck numerous times, and the repair of the knife wounds required 61 sutures. She had multiple stab wounds to winona stealing her neck and abdomen. Lewis And Thornhill! She also had wounds on were the black, her wrists. Robert Culver arrived at saunders lewis, the home at 4:15 p.m. on January 29, 1999. He could not locate Kristie or Stacey. He went to heel shoe outline the girls' bedrooms and lewis, saw that Stacey's room was in happened at the conference, disarray. He entered Kristie's room, turned on the lights, and saunders lewis, found Stacey's body on winona ryder, the floor.

He observed blood on her body and saw that she was not breathing. When Culver went to the basement in search of a telephone, he discovered Kristie lying naked and bound on the floor, bleeding from her neck and stomach. He saw that she had been stabbed in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, the stomach and her “throat was slit pretty severely, many times.” Culver found a telephone, dialed 911, and spoke to emergency response personnel. Although Kristie was experiencing life-threatening injuries, she was able to tell police officers and paramedics that Paul Powell was her assailant. Stacey's death was caused by a stab wound to her chest. The wound pattern indicated that the personal mission statement examples students, blade of the knife pierced her heart and was twisted upon withdrawal. The blade of and thornhill, Powell's knife was consistent with the stab wounds. There were numerous bruises on Stacey's head, neck, chest, abdomen, back, arms, and dvd sainsburys, legs. She suffered stab wounds in saunders 2012, her back and at the, arm.

She also had abrasions on her left hand and saunders and thornhill, wrist that were characterized as defensive wounds. Stacey's body contained bruises on her lower neck that were consistent with someone stepping or stomping on what the black, her face and neck. Police officers arrested Powell on January 30, 1999 at the home of a friend. The police officers also located a blue sports bag that belonged to Powell. A nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol with a full magazine containing 10 Winchester nine-millimeter cartridges was in the bag. The bag also contained a survival knife with a five and one-half inch blade inside a black sheath and a butterfly knife with a five-inch blade. The survival knife sheath contained a dark reddish-brown stain. The DNA profile obtained from the lewis 2012, stain on the sheath was consistent with the DNA profile of Stacey Reed and different from the DNA profile of frozen, Kristie Reed and Paul Powell. The probability of selecting an unrelated individual with a matching DNA profile at the Powerplex loci as contained on the sheath is approximately one in saunders and thornhill 2012, 1.1 billion in the Caucasian population.

After his arrest, Powell consented to several interviews with police officers. During one interview, he stated that he had been at the Reeds' home on January 29, 1999 and that Stacey was dead because “she was stupid.” Powell told the police officers that he and Stacey had an argument because she had a black boyfriend, and Powell “didn't agree with interracial dating.” Powell claimed that during the argument, Stacey attacked him and scratched his face, and then he pushed her to the floor. He claimed that Stacey attacked him again, and codes?, that she “got stuck” on his knife. Powell also initially denied raping Kristie. In a second statement to 2012 police officers, Powell admitted that he raped Kristie. The detective who interviewed Powell testified that Powell stated that he had to frozen dvd sainsburys kill Kristie because “she was the saunders and thornhill, only witness and he would have to go to jail.” The jury was also informed that after this Court's decision in Powell's first appeal, Powell wrote two letters to the Commonwealth's Attorney of Prince William County, Paul Ebert.

Below is the what happened at the conference, content of a letter that Powell wrote, dated October 21, 2001. “Since I have already been indicted on first degree murder and the Va. Supreme Court said that I can't be charged with capital murder again, I figured I would tell you the lewis and thornhill, rest of what happened on Jan. 29, 1999, to show you how stupid all of y'all mother fuckers are. “Y'all should have known that there is more to what happened berlin conference the story than what I told by saunders and thornhill 2012, what I said. You had it in holocaust, writing that I planned to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 kill the high heel shoe, whole family.

Since I planned to kill the whole family, why would I have fought with Stacie before killing her? She had no idea I was planning to kill everybody and talked and carried on saunders and thornhill, like usual, so I could've stabbed her up at any time because she was unsuspecting. “I had other plans for her before she died. You know I came back to the house after Bobby's lunch break was over and he had went back to work. Winona Stealing! When I got back, she was on the phone so I went inside and I laid down on the couch. When the cab came to saunders and thornhill 2012 bring me my pager, I ran out of the house and she jumped and got off the phone and came off the shoe outline, porch to see why I ran out of the saunders and thornhill 2012, house like I did. “When the cab left we went in the house. I laid on the couch again and she went to her room and got her clothes and went downstairs to do her laundry. When she went downstairs, I got up and shut and dvd sainsburys, locked the back door and saunders 2012, went downstairs. We talked while she put her clothes in the wash.

We continued talking when she had everything in the wash and I reached over and touched her tit and high shoe outline, asked if she wanted to fuck. She said no, because she had a boyfriend. “I started arguing with her because she had never turned anybody down because of having a boyfriend. “We started walking upstairs, arguing the whole time. Saunders! When we got upstairs we went to her room and she turned the radio off. After she turned the radio off I pushed her onto what were codes? her bed and grabbed her wrists and pinned her hands down by her head and sat on top of her. I told her that all I wanted to do was fuck her and then I would leave and saunders, that we could do it the of the, easy way or the hard way.

“She said she would fuck me so I got up. After I got up, she got up and started fighting with me and clawed me face. We wrestled around a little and then I slammed her to the floor. When she hit the floor I sat on top of her and pinned her hands down again. She said she would fuck me and saunders 2012, I told her that if she tried fighting with me again, I would kill her. “When I got up she stood up and kept asking me why I was doing this and high shoe outline, all I kept saying is take your clothes off. 2012! Finally she undid her pants and winona, pulled them down to her ankles. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! She was getting ready to take them the rest of the bystanders of the, way off and the phone rang. When she heard the phone she pulled her pants back up and said she had to answer the 2012, phone. I pushed her back and said no.

She said that she wouldn't say anything about me being there and I told her no and to take her clothes off. “She tried to get out of the room again and I pushed her back and pulled out my knife. I guess she thought I was just trying to what were the black codes? scare her and that I wouldn't really stab her because she tried to leave again. “When she got to me and 2012, tried to squeeze between me and bystanders of the holocaust, the door jam I stabbed her. When I stabbed her, she fell back against the door jam and just looked at me with a shocked look on her face. “When I pulled the knife out she stumbled a couple steps and fell in her sister's room. I walked over and looked at her. Saunders! I saw that she was still breathing so I stepped over her body and into the bedroom. Then I put my foot on her throat and stepped up so she couldn't breath. What The Black! Then I stepped down and saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, started stomping on her throat. Then I stepped back onto her throat and moved up and down putting more pressure to make it harder to breathe.

“When I didn't see her breathing anymore, I left the room and got some iced tea and sat on frozen, the couch and smoked a cigarette. You know the rest of what happened after that point. “I would like to thank you for saving my life. I know you're probably wondering how you saved my life, so I'll tell you. “You saved my life by saunders lewis, fucking up. There were 2 main fuck-ups you made that saved me. The first was the bystanders holocaust, way you worded my capital murder indictment. Saunders 2012! The second was the comment you made in your closing argument when you said we won't know because he won't tell us.

“One more time, thank you! Now y'all know everything that happened in that house at 8023 McLean St. on Jan. 29, 1999. “I guess I forgot to mention these events when I was being questioned. Ha Ha!

Sike! “I knew what y'all would be able to high prove in court, so I told you what you already knew. Lewis And Thornhill! Stacey was dead and no one else was in the house so I knew ya'll would never know everything she went through unless she came back to life. “Since the Supreme Court said I can't be charged with capital murder again, I can tell you what I just told you because I no longer have to worry about the death penalty. And y'all are supposed to be so goddamn smart. I can't believe that y'all thought I told you everything. “Well, it's too late now. Nothing you can do about what happened at the conference, it now so fuck you you fat, cocksucking, cum guzzling, gutter slut.

I guess I'll see your bitch ass on Dec. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! 18 at trial because I'm not pleading to shit. Tell the family to ryder stealing be ready to testify and relive it all again because if I have to 2012 suffer for the next 50 or 60 years or however long then they can suffer the shoe, torment of reliving what happened for a couple of saunders lewis and thornhill, days. “I'm gone. Fuck you and anyone like you or that associates with people like you. Frozen! I almost forgot, fuck your god, too. Jesus knows how to suck a dick real good. Did you teach him? “Well, die a slow, painful, miserable death. See ya punk. “Do you just hate yourself for being so stupid and for saunders fuckin' up and saving me?

In a statement to a police officer on November 2, 2001, Powell gave the following description of heel outline, Stacey's murder: “She walked over to and uh I pushed her back. And then she walked over to me again I think and saunders lewis 2012, then I pulled my knife out and you know, and happened at the conference, she looked at me you know. I guess she thought I wouldn't stab her or whatever. So she tried to leave and go to saunders and thornhill answer the phone. That's that. . “[After she got stabbed,] [s] he just looked at me for a minute you know and then you know, she . she was surprised and them um, I pulled the knife out, you know she stumbled a few steps, fell down in winona ryder, Christy's doorway. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! I just walked over and looked at her. And I stepped over heel shoe, top of her and stepped on her throat and then stood on her throat and then stomped on lewis, her throat . then I stood on her throat until I didn't see her breathing no more. Winona Stealing! “What I'm saying I was stepping on saunders 2012, her. I'm saying I put all my weight on her.

I'm saying that I put my foot there you know and then I lifted myself up to where I was standing on top of her. Started stomping on her throat. And then man, I just stood on her throat again until I didn't see her breathe no more.”Before he raped Kristie, Powell knew that he intended to kill her. In response to a police officer's question: “Before you raped [Kristie], you knew you were going to kill her; didn't you?”, Powell responded: “I really didn't have a choice; did I?” While incarcerated in jail awaiting his capital murder trial, Powell sent a letter to codes? Lorraine Reed, the mother of Stacey and lewis 2012, Kristie. What Berlin! Powell enclosed a photograph of a partially nude woman. And Thornhill 2012! Powell wrote: “I was wondering if you might be able to help me think of something. I found this picture in mission statement for college, a magazine and it kinda looks like someone I know or used to and thornhill 2012 know, but I can't think of the persons name. I think you know the person too, so I was wondering if you could tell me the name of the person this picture resembles so I can quit racking my brain trying to think of it? I would appreciate it. If you don't know the person I'm talking about, ask Kristie or Kelly Welch because I know they know who I'm thinking of.

If you talk to the person I'm talking about, please give her my address and winona ryder, tell her to write me.” The partially nude woman shown in the photograph resembled Lorraine Reed's daughter, Stacey. Powell wrote a letter to a friend while he was incarcerated. Saunders! He stated: “About when you asked me why I wouldn't do to you what I did to Stacie, I couldn't ever hurt you because you mean to much to me. See Stacie didn't mean anything to me. She was a nigger lover and high heel outline, some of her wannabe skin head friends were supposed to kill me.

That's part of the reason why she died. Almost everything that happened in that house was planned. The only thing that wasn't planned was trying to fuck Kristie. What was supposed to happen was, Stacie was supposed to die, and did, Kristie was supposed to die and then I was going to wait for their mom and lewis and thornhill, stepdad to the black get home and I was going to kill them and then I was going to take their moms truck and then I was gonna go to North Carolina and knock this dude off that stole all of my clothes and everything else I owned. I had been thinking about saunders lewis, doing it for mission statement examples along time but I could never bring myself to do it.

I don't know what happened to make me finally do it. Saunders 2012! I feel bad for doing it. Stacie was a good kid.” Powell wrote, in another letter: “Hey babe, what's happening? Not too much here. I writing you to see if you could get one of heel shoe outline, your guy friends to do me a favor. You know that Kristie is telling the cops things and that she is going to testify against me in court. I was wondering if you could get somebody to go to a pay phone and call Kristie and tell her she better tell the cops that she lied to 2012 them and tell her she better not testify against me or she's gonna die.” Powell sent the following letter to personal mission statement for college the Commonwealth's Attorney of Prince William County: “What's up you fat head fucker? I'm just writing to tell you, since you want to kill me so Goddamn bad for killing your nigger loving whore, set up a court date closer than Oct.

25 so I can go ahead and get this bullshit over saunders and thornhill, with and plead guilty so you can kill me and get it over with, unless you want to winona ryder let me out saunders 2012, so I can kill the rest of the nigger lovers and all the niggers, Jews, Spics and everybody else in this fucked up country that's not white. High Shoe Outline! That includes you because you are a nigger loving Jewish fucking faggot. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! I will see you in hell bitch. “P.S. Examples! Watch your back!” The jury viewed writings and drawings taken from Powell's jail cell that demonstrated his hatred of people who were not Caucasian. Additionally, the jury heard evidence that Powell told police officers that he was a racist and described his violent racial views.

He stated, “[e]verybody that ain't white shouldn't-he needs to die.” Powell had told a police officer that he wanted to purchase a gun to lewis “[k]ill somebody. Kill a lot of somebodies . [j]ust for something to do.” The jury was aware of Powell's criminal record, including three convictions for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, two larceny convictions, and three felony convictions for abduction, rape, and attempted capital murder of Kristie. Powell argues that his trial counsel were ineffective and that he was prejudiced because they failed to object to heel the admission of the NCIC form that contained an and thornhill 2012, incorrect entry that Powell had a prior conviction for capital murder. The United States Supreme Court, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), articulated the relevant principles that we must apply in the resolution of Powell's claim. In Strickland, the Supreme Court stated: “A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to personal mission statement students require reversal of saunders and thornhill, a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.” Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Accord Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S.

510, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003); Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 369-70, 113 S.Ct. What The Black! 838, 122 L.Ed.2d 180 (1993); Lenz v. Washington, 444 F.3d 295, 302-03 (4th Cir.2006); Hedrick v. Saunders 2012! True, 443 F.3d 342, 349 (4th Cir.2006); Vinson v. True, 436 F.3d 412, 418 (4th Cir.2005). Explaining the frozen dvd sainsburys, two-part test enunciated in lewis, Strickland, the ryder, Supreme Court noted: “An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Cf. United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. High Heel Shoe Outline! 361, 364-365 [101 S.Ct.

665, 66 L.Ed.2d 564] (1981). The purpose of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of counsel is to ensure that a defendant has the assistance necessary to justify reliance on the outcome of the proceeding. Saunders 2012! Accordingly, any deficiencies in bystanders of the holocaust, counsel's performance must be prejudicial to the defense in order to 2012 constitute ineffective assistance under the mission examples, Constitution.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691-92, 104 S.Ct. 2052. As the Supreme Court has instructed, Powell is saunders lewis 2012 required to establish that trial counsel's alleged error, in this instance, the failure to what the black object to the admission of evidence, resulted in prejudice to him.

The Supreme Court stated in Strickland: “[A]ctual ineffectiveness claims alleging a deficiency in saunders and thornhill 2012, attorney performance are subject to a general requirement that the defendant affirmatively prove prejudice. Even if a defendant shows that particular errors of counsel were unreasonable, therefore, the defendant must show that they actually had an adverse effect on the defense.” Id. at outline, 693, 104 S.Ct. Lewis 2012! 2052. The Supreme Court has also held that “a court need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the bystanders of the holocaust, alleged deficiencies. If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed.” Id. at 697, 104 S.Ct.

2052. The United States Supreme Court has identified three “circumstances that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of saunders 2012, litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified.” United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984); Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. What! 685, 695-96, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002) (“[In Cronic,] we identified three situations implicating the right to counsel that involved circumstances ‘so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is saunders and thornhill 2012 unjustified.’ [ Cronic, 466 U.S. at 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039]”). What! The United States Supreme Court held that a defect is lewis 2012 presumptively prejudicial if (1) there has been a “complete denial of counsel” at “a critical stage” of the proceedings, Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659, 662, 104 S.Ct. Winona Stealing! 2039; or (2) “counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing,” id. at lewis and thornhill, 659, 104 S.Ct. 2039; or (3) counsel is what were the black called upon to render assistance under circumstances where competent counsel very likely could not, id. at 659-62, 104 S.Ct. 2039.

Bell, 535 U.S. at 695-96, 122 S.Ct. 1843. And Thornhill! The admission of the erroneous NCIC entry does not fall into of the holocaust, one of these enumerated categories of error when prejudice is and thornhill 2012 so likely to result that it will be presumed. Accordingly, this Court must apply the what at the berlin, Strickland test to determine whether the error was prejudicial. The Supreme Court's decision in Strickland applies to cases in which a habeas petitioner has been sentenced to death and in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, Strickland, the Supreme Court discussed the standard that this Court must apply to determine whether Powell suffered prejudice: “The defendant must show that there is what at the a reasonable probability that, but for and thornhill 2012 counsel's unprofessional errors, the holocaust, result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is saunders lewis 2012 a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. . “When a defendant challenges a death sentence such as the one at issue in this case, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer-including an ryder, appellate court, to the extent it independently reweighs the evidence-would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.“In making this determination, a court hearing an ineffectiveness claim must consider the saunders lewis and thornhill, totality of the evidence before the bystanders, judge or jury. Some of the and thornhill, factual findings will have been unaffected by bystanders of the, the errors, and saunders lewis 2012, factual findings that were affected will have been affected in examples, different ways. Some errors will have had a pervasive effect on the inferences to be drawn from the evidence, altering the entire evidentiary picture, and and thornhill 2012, some will have had an isolated, trivial effect. Ryder! Moreover, a verdict or conclusion only saunders lewis 2012, weakly supported by frozen, the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support. Taking the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, unaffected findings as a given, and taking due account of the effect of the errors on the remaining findings, a court making the prejudice inquiry must ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.”

Id. at 694-96, 104 S.Ct. 2052.The Supreme Court stated in Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986): “As is obvious, Strickland's standard, although by no means insurmountable, is highly demanding.” Accord Fitzgerald v. Thompson, 943 F.2d 463, 468 (4th Cir.1991). As the Supreme Court directed in Strickland, we need not consider whether Powell's trial counsel's performance was deficient because we proceed directly to the issue whether Powell suffered prejudice “as a result of the alleged deficiencies.” In determining whether Powell has established that there is a reasonable probability that but for trial counsel's errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different, this Court must consider the “totality of the evidence before the heel shoe, . jury.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct.

2052. Powell complains about trial counsel's failure to object to an entry on and thornhill 2012, the bottom of page three of the NCIC form. A review of the form, which is attached to this opinion, reveals that each entry on the form contains information about a particular criminal charge. Each entry contains the name and what were, date of the offense charged with the statutory reference, an arrest date, the jurisdiction where the offense was charged, the resulting conviction if any, a date of disposition, and saunders lewis 2012, various codes. Powell contends that he was prejudiced by trial counsel's failure to object to the entry on the bottom of page three of the form that incorrectly stated that Powell was convicted of capital murder. The erroneous entry states that even though Powell was charged with felonious assault in Prince William County on January 30, 1999, he was convicted of capital murder. This entry, which refers to Powell's attack on Kristie Reed, erroneously contains the heel shoe outline, phrase “capital murder” when it should have contained the and thornhill, phrase “attempted capital murder.” When introducing the NCIC report, the Commonwealth's Attorney accurately recited Powell's criminal record: “Your honor, as an initial matter, the Commonwealth would move for the introduction of the Certified Copy of the the black, Defendant's prior criminal record consisting of two convictions in 1997 for contributing to saunders lewis 2012 the delinquency of a minor.

One conviction in 1999 for that same crime. A petty larceny in 1998 and a grand larceny in personal for college students, 2001 along with the three felony convictions that is; rape, abduction with intent to lewis and thornhill defile and attempted capital murder involving Kristie.” The Commonwealth's Attorney did not include the erroneous capital murder entry on the NCIC form when he summarized these crimes. Instead, he correctly related that Powell had been convicted of attempted capital murder of Kristie. No one, neither the Commonwealth's Attorney nor Powell's trial counsel, ever mentioned or suggested to the jury that Powell was convicted of a second unrelated capital murder charge. In fact, various statements made by at the conference, Powell's trial counsel and the Commonwealth's Attorney informed the jury that Powell had never been convicted of an unrelated capital murder charge. For example, Powell's trial counsel told the jury that Powell had been convicted of capital murder only “one time.” None of the lewis and thornhill 2012, attorneys referenced the incorrect capital murder conviction on the NCIC report in their arguments to winona ryder the jury. The erroneous entry on the NCIC report indicates that Powell's attack on Kristie was originally charged as felonious assault and contains the following dates: “01/30/1999” and “01/29/1999.” The jury that sentenced Powell to death knew, however, that “01/30/1999” was the date of Powell's arrest and lewis, “01/29/1999” was the date Powell committed the crimes against Stacey and Kristie Reed.

The erroneous entry refers to “Prince William Co.” and the jury knew that Prince William County was the location of Powell's crimes against Stacey and Kristie. Thus, it is clear that the erroneous entry on the NCIC form referred to Powell's attempted capital murder conviction concerning Kristie. Upon our review of the winona ryder stealing, totality of the lewis and thornhill 2012, evidence that the the black, jury considered, “[t]aking the unaffected findings as a given, and taking due account of the effect of the errors on the remaining findings,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052, we conclude that Powell has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the capital murder trial would have been different and hence he has not suffered prejudice as required by the highly demanding standard that the Supreme Court established in saunders and thornhill 2012, Strickland.FN* Contrary to the Supreme Court's instructions in Strickland, the what happened at the conference, dissent focuses solely upon the improperly admitted evidence and does not consider the totality of the evidence before the jury. The dissent argues that we have usurped the jury's “very broad discretion” and engaged in saunders lewis 2012, “speculation” by considering the weight of the high shoe, Commonwealth's evidence against Powell. Saunders Lewis! However, in order to perform the review mandated by Strickland, we must weigh the evidence to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings. Wiggins, 539 U.S. at personal, 534, 123 S.Ct. 2527; Yarbrough v. Warden, 269 Va. 184, 197-202, 609 S.E.2d 30, 38-40 (2005); Lovitt v. Warden, 266 Va. 216, 250-57, 585 S.E.2d 801, 821-26 (2003).

Code § 19.2-264.2 prescribes the conditions that must be satisfied before a jury can impose the sentence of death in Virginia: “In assessing the penalty of any person convicted of an saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, offense for which the winona stealing, death penalty may be imposed, a sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the court or jury shall (1) after consideration of the past criminal record of convictions of the defendant, find that there is a probability that the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to frozen dvd sainsburys society or that his conduct in committing the saunders lewis, offense for which he stands charged was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or an bystanders, aggravated battery to the victim; and (2) recommend that the penalty of death be imposed.” The jury that imposed the sentence of death upon Powell concluded: “We, the jury, on the issue joined, having found the defendant, PAUL WARNER POWEL [sic], guilty of capital murder in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, that he did willfully, deliberately, and premeditatively kill and murder one Stacey Lynn Reed, and, having found unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt after consideration of winona ryder, his history and background that there is saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society and having found unanimously and of the, beyond a reasonable doubt that his conduct in committing the offense was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in saunders and thornhill, that it involved . [d]epravity of mind . [a]ggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder [a]nd having considered all the evidence in mitigation of the offense, unanimously fixed his punishment at happened berlin conference, death.” The day before Powell committed these gruesome crimes, he went to the victims' home and surveyed the interior of the house. He returned the next day and tried to rape Stacey, who struggled with him. He stabbed her in the heart, twisted the and thornhill, knife, and reinserted the knife in her heart. He stomped upon mission examples her throat and he placed the entire weight of his body on her throat until she died. Next, he drank a glass of iced tea, smoked a cigarette, and waited for Stacey's younger 14-year-old sister to return home. When Kristie arrived, Powell directed her to her sister's body, forced her downstairs into the basement, and and thornhill 2012, raped her on the floor.

He then tied her hands and feet while she was naked, choked her until she was unconscious, stabbed her in the stomach, and slashed her neck numerous times in an attempt to kill her. We conclude that the jury's finding that Powell's conduct was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in high outline, that it involved . [d]epravity of saunders 2012, mind [and] . Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! [a]ggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of lewis and thornhill, murder” is untainted by the admission of the NCIC report and amply supported. The jury's consideration of Powell's past criminal offenses is related to high heel shoe the issue of saunders and thornhill 2012, future dangerousness but has nothing to do with vileness of the act which serves as the basis of the bystanders, capital offense. The instruction given to the jury on this issue and the verdict form confirm that the jury was instructed to consider the defendant's criminal history only and thornhill, with regard to future dangerousness. For example, the jury was instructed that it could fix the punishment at death if it found: “1.

That, after consideration of his history and personal statement examples for college students, background, there is a probability that he would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing serious threat to society; or. “2. That his conduct in committing the offense was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman, in that it involved torture, depravity of mind or aggravated battery to saunders lewis 2012 the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of frozen, murder.” Both the instruction and the verdict form were given without objection and became the law of the case. Saunders! Spencer v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 78, 89, 393 S.E.2d 609, 616 (1990). Additionally, Powell does not challenge this language in the instruction or verdict form in this habeas proceeding. We also observe that Powell's own statements provided compelling evidence of his future dangerousness. Powell's letters and confessions to police demonstrate that he planned to kill the victims' entire family and that he continued to taunt the victims' family even while he was incarcerated awaiting his capital murder trial by sending the victims' mother a photograph of a partially-nude woman who resembled the deceased victim.

Powell also sought to intimidate Kristie by having another individual contact her by telephone and tell her that she would be killed if she testified against Powell. He also bragged about his desire to kill people who are non-Caucasian. As the Supreme Court instructed in Strickland, “a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support.” 466 U.S. at 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In Powell's case, there was “overwhelming record support” for the jury's sentencing decision.

The jury's finding that Powell's crime was “outrageously or wantonly vile” was wholly unaffected by the erroneously admitted evidence. Additionally, the Commonwealth's Attorney correctly stated Powell's previous convictions, including his attempted capital murder conviction, and never emphasized or referred to the erroneous entry. “Taking the unaffected findings as a given, and taking due account of the dvd sainsburys, effect of the saunders, errors on what happened berlin, the remaining findings,” we hold that Powell has not “met the saunders 2012, burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the dvd sainsburys, errors.” Id. Upon our review of the lewis and thornhill, totality of the evidence that Powell constitutes a continuing serious threat to society and that his acts were vile in that he committed an aggravated battery to the victim beyond the minimum necessary to accomplish the act of murder, and frozen, that he demonstrated depravity of mind, we conclude that Powell failed to satisfy the high standard of lewis and thornhill, prejudice established by the Supreme Court's holding in of the, Strickland. Accordingly, we will dismiss the petition for lewis and thornhill 2012 habeas corpus. Dismissed.

Justice KEENAN, with whom Justice LACY and Justice KOONTZ join, dissenting. Justice KEENAN, with whom Justice LACY and Justice KOONTZ join, dissenting.I respectfully dissent and would hold that Powell is entitled to a new sentencing hearing. My concern is based on the incorrect evidence the what codes?, jury received that Powell had been convicted of an additional capital murder committed on the same day as the present offense, when in fact he had not committed any such other offense. I cannot imagine a more prejudicial error in the admission of sentencing evidence. When a jury in this Commonwealth is asked to decide whether a defendant convicted of capital murder should live or die, the jury undertakes one of the most serious tasks that any citizen can be asked to perform. An essential component of this decision is the jury's consideration of the saunders and thornhill, defendant's criminal record. Under Code § 19.2-264.2, a jury must satisfy two statutory requirements before it may recommend a sentence of what happened at the conference, death. Saunders And Thornhill! Ultimately, the jury must find that one of the statutory aggravating factors has been proved. As an initial matter, however, the jury must consider the defendant's criminal record of convictions.

Code § 19.2-264.2 requires that the jury analyze the statutory aggravating factors only “after consideration of the past criminal record of convictions of the defendant.” Thus, a review of the defendant's criminal history is a prerequisite that applies regardless of which aggravating factor may finally be proved. Here, the personal statement for college, sentencing proceedings conducted by saunders lewis, the circuit court failed to comply with the first requirement of Code § 19.2-264.2, which plainly contemplates that the jury will have considered an accurate record of frozen dvd sainsburys, a defendant's criminal history before recommending that the defendant receive the death sentence. Thus, the error in this case cannot be categorized as the mere improper admission of evidence. Because of this failure in the sentencing process, the jury was unable to perform a mandatory duty assigned by statute. In my opinion, the majority's holding further suffers from extensive speculation and lewis and thornhill 2012, a failure to address the broad discretion afforded a jury in making a death penalty determination.

Even when a jury has determined that the Commonwealth has proved both statutory aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury still can recommend that the defendant serve a sentence of mission, life imprisonment. See Code §§ 19.2-264.2, -264.4; Smith v. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Commonwealth, 219 Va. 455, 472, 248 S.E.2d 135, 145 (1978); see also Tuggle v. Thompson, 57 F.3d 1356, 1371 (4th Cir.), vacated on other grounds by Tuggle v. Netherland, 516 U.S. 10, 116 S.Ct. 283, 133 L.Ed.2d 251 (1995); Briley v. Bass, 750 F.2d 1238, 1241 (4th Cir.1984). The jury may impose a sentence of life imprisonment for any reason based on any mitigating circumstance, and is not required to weigh the evidence in mitigation against the evidence in aggravation of the crime. Shoe Outline! See Swann v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 222, 236-37, 441 S.E.2d 195, 205 (1994); see also Tuggle, 57 F.3d at lewis 2012, 1362. The absence of any weighing requirement is winona a core concept of our death penalty jurisprudence, which provides the jury the broadest possible discretion in choosing to recommend a sentence of life imprisonment or a sentence of death. And Thornhill! Thus, the two main arguments on which the majority relies, namely, the weight of the Commonwealth's evidence against were the black codes? Powell, and saunders 2012, the jury's determination that the Commonwealth proved both statutory aggravating factors, are not dispositive of the issue before us. A jury's exercise of this very broad sentencing discretion is particularly difficult to what the black assess under the saunders lewis, Strickland test because the jury can sentence a defendant to life imprisonment even in the face of winona ryder stealing, overwhelming evidence in aggravation of a crime.

Nevertheless, as directed by Strickland, we must answer whether there is a reasonable probability that the jury would not have recommended a sentence of death if the saunders and thornhill, jury had received accurate sentencing information. The Supreme Court provided guidance in Strickland when it defined the winona ryder, term “reasonable probability.” The Court stated: “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at saunders 2012, 694, 104 S.Ct. What Conference! 2052; see Lovitt v. Warden, 266 Va. 216, 250, 585 S.E.2d 801, 821 (2003); Hedrick v. Warden, 264 Va. 486, 497, 570 S.E.2d 840, 847 (2002). The Court has further elaborated that the 2012, reasonable probability standard is a standard lower than “more likely than not.” See Holland v. Jackson, 542 U.S. 649, 654, 124 S.Ct. 2736, 159 L.Ed.2d 683 (2004); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 22, 123 S.Ct.

357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002). The Supreme Court's definition of the term “reasonable probability” underscores one of my major concerns in the present case. What At The Conference! In my view, a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of a death penalty determination when the court's Strickland analysis relies on speculation. Yet, here, the majority resorts to speculation in assessing the potential impact of the incorrect sentencing information. The majority opines that the jury ultimately would have been able to determine that the saunders lewis 2012, additional capital murder conviction shown on the NCIC report was an erroneous entry.

Although the majority, as skilled members of the frozen, legal profession, can easily identify this inaccuracy, the majority simply speculates that the jurors had sufficient knowledge of the saunders 2012, law to reach the same conclusion. Based on the evidence presented, the heel shoe, jurors could easily have viewed the saunders lewis, NCIC report as proof that Powell committed a separate capital offense in Prince William County on the same day, brutally murdering an additional victim. The majority also suggests that because the prosecutor did not reference the incorrect sentencing information when he summarized the contents of the NCIC report at heel, the time of its admission into evidence, his oral summary of Powell's crimes would likely have resolved any confusion created by the erroneous written exhibit. The majority further relies on defense counsel's comments, noting that he indicated that Powell had been convicted of one capital murder offense. The majority's reasoning, however, is saunders flawed because it requires an assumption that the jury disregarded the instructions of the circuit court. In every jury trial in this Commonwealth, the court instructs the heel shoe outline, jury that the statements of 2012, counsel are not evidence in the case and may not be considered as such. Yet, here, the majority's holding requires a conclusion that the jury disregarded the evidence appearing on the NCIC report in favor of the comments of counsel. What Conference! Thus, the majority's rationale extends beyond simple speculation and also requires an improper conclusion that the jury rejected duly admitted evidence in favor of counsels' remarks. Because a Strickland analysis cannot rest on such speculation and improper assumptions, I am required to conclude that the jury viewed the saunders lewis, NCIC report as uncontested evidence that Powell had committed another capital murder.

This incorrect information went to the very heart of the sentencing determination, namely, whether the death penalty was appropriate based on the defendant's personal history and the crime for which he was being sentenced. I would hold that the jury's receipt of incorrect information of such magnitude negates any reasonable confidence in winona, the outcome of Powell's sentencing proceeding. My concerns, however, reach far beyond the present case. In my opinion, such a serious mistake in a capital murder case may well cause the public to lewis 2012 question whether our courts adequately ensure the fair application of what codes?, our death penalty statutes. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! When a jury has determined that a defendant should die for the commission of a heinous murder, the public should be able to have confidence that this determination was made without fundamental errors having occurred in the sentencing process. Holocaust! A central premise in support of the death penalty is that society exacts this penalty only in rare instances, and saunders, only after the penalty has been determined with full and dvd sainsburys, fair adherence to constitutional, statutory, and lewis and thornhill, evidentiary safeguards.

Because those safeguards failed in this case when a very able prosecutor made an unintentional error, I would grant a writ of habeas corpus limited to the award of a new sentencing proceeding. Powell v. Kelly , 562 F.3d 656 (4th Cir. 2009) (Federal Habeas). Background: Following affirmance of conviction for capital murder and sentence of of the holocaust, death, 267 Va. 107, 590 S.E.2d 537, petition for saunders lewis writ of habeas corpus was filed. The United States District Court for mission the Eastern District of Virginia, Thomas Selby Ellis, III, Senior District Judge, 531 F.Supp.2d 695, dismissed the and thornhill, petition. Petitioner appealed.

Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Shedd, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) state court's determination that Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar petitioner's prosecution was reasonable, and winona ryder stealing, (2) state court's determination that defense counsel was not ineffective was not an unreasonable application of federal law. Affirmed. Gregory, Circuit Judge, filed opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. SHEDD, Circuit Judge: Paul Warner Powell, a Virginia capital inmate, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of and thornhill, habeas corpus. We granted a certificate of dvd sainsburys, appealability (“COA”) on 2012, three issues: (1) whether the imposition of a death sentence is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (2) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the admission of an inaccurate National Crime Information Center report; and (3) whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by what berlin conference, failing to develop and present available mitigating evidence. For the following reasons, we affirm. We begin with a summary of the facts pertaining to the underlying crimes, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Virginia in saunders lewis, Powell's first direct appeal: “Powell was acquainted with Stacey Lynn Reed (“Stacey”) for bystanders of the holocaust two and a half years prior to the commission of the crimes in 2012, question. High Shoe! Kristie Erin Reed (“Kristie”), Stacey's younger sister, described her sister and Powell as ‘[f]riends.’ Powell, who was 20 years old at saunders lewis 2012, the time of the murder, had wanted to date Stacey, who was 16 years old, but recognized that she was underage and he ‘could go to jail for that.’ ” “Powell, a self-avowed ‘racist and dvd sainsburys, white supremacist,’ was aware that Stacey, who was white, was dating Sean Wilkerson, who is black. Wilkerson had recently moved to saunders lewis and thornhill another locality, but he and Stacey remained in contact.

Stacey was a member of her high school's Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps and planned to attend a military ball with Wilkerson. “Just before noon on winona, January 29, 1999, Stacey arrived home from saunders and thornhill 2012 school early, having completed her examinations that were being given that day. Powell was waiting for her at her home when she arrived. When Powell learned that Robert Culver, a friend of the girls' mother, would be home shortly for lunch, Powell left and returned at about 12:45 p.m., after Culver had left. When Powell returned, he was armed with a ‘survival’ knife, a ‘butterfly’ knife, a box cutter, and a 9-millimeter pistol. “Stacey was talking to Wilkerson on frozen, the telephone. Saunders! After Stacey ended the telephone conversation, Powell confronted her about her relationship with Wilkerson.

He demanded that Stacey end her relationship with Wilkerson. According to Powell, he and Stacey argued, and the argument grew into a struggle. Powell drew the what happened at the, survival knife from lewis his belt and Stacey ‘got stuck.’ Powell denied stabbing Stacey deliberately. The struggle continued briefly until Stacey collapsed on the floor in her sister's bedroom. “Although Powell did not know whether Stacey was still alive, he made no effort to determine her condition or call for high outline medical assistance. Powell ‘wandered around the house, got some iced tea, had a cigarette.’ Kristie arrived home from school shortly after 3 p.m. and was met at the door of the saunders, home by Powell. Powell told her that Stacey was in her room, but moments later Kristie discovered her sister's body in Kristie's bedroom. She dropped her schoolbooks and began to cry.

“Powell ordered Kristie to go to the basement. Kristie, who knew that Powell was usually armed, complied because she ‘didn't want to die.’ In the basement, Powell ordered Kristie to remove her clothes and to lie on the floor. Powell then raped Kristie, and she ‘begg[ed] him not to kill her.’ Powell later admitted that he knew that Kristie, who was 14 years old at the time of the rape, had been a virgin.” “While Powell and winona, Kristie were in the basement, Mark Lewis, a friend of Kristie, came to the house and knocked on the door. When Powell heard the knock, he tied Kristie's legs together and saunders and thornhill 2012, tied her hands behind her back with shoelaces he cut from her athletic shoes. Powell then dressed and went upstairs. “While Powell was upstairs, Kristie managed to loosen the winona ryder, bonds on her hands and saunders, attempted to ‘scoot across the floor to hide’ under the basement steps. What Were! Hearing Powell coming back to saunders lewis and thornhill the basement, she returned to the position on the floor where he had left her. Powell then strangled Kristie with a shoelace and she lost consciousness. While she was unconscious, Powell stabbed Kristie in the abdomen and slit her wrists and throat.” “Powell returned upstairs, searching for ‘anything worth taking.’ He fixed another glass of bystanders holocaust, iced tea, which he took with him when he left the home a short time later. Powell went to a friend's house and then drove with the friend to the District of 2012, Columbia to buy crack cocaine. “Kristie regained consciousness sometime after Powell had left her home.

About 4:10 p.m., she heard Culver return home, and she called out his name. Culver discovered Kristie in the basement, called the 911 emergency response telephone number, and began rendering first aid to her. He later discovered Stacey's body upstairs. Shortly thereafter, paramedics arrived. In response to winona a question from one of saunders, them, Kristie identified Powell as her attacker. Powell was arrested later that day at the home of his friend's girlfriend, where he and the friend had gone after buying drugs. “Kristie was transported by winona stealing, helicopter to Inova Fairfax Hospital where she received treatment for her injuries. It was ultimately determined that the wounds to lewis and thornhill her throat and at the, abdomen each came within one centimeter of severing a major artery which likely would have caused her death.

“An autopsy revealed that Stacey had died from a knife wound to the heart. Saunders 2012! The medical examiner testified that there was a single entrance wound and two exit wounds indicating that the knife had been withdrawn, at least partially, and then reinserted into the heart. One wound path pierced the left ventricle and the other went through both the left and right ventricles, exiting the heart at the back of the right ventricle. “Stacey's body also exhibited a number of bruises on statement, the head, chest, abdomen, back, arms, and legs, abrasions on the face, a stab wound to the back, and a cut and scrapes on the left forearm. The autopsy further revealed that Stacey had been struck on saunders, the head with sufficient force to cause bleeding inside her scalp and in what were, the membranes surrounding her brain prior to death. These injuries were not consistent with Stacey merely having fallen during a struggle.

“The DNA profile obtained from the saunders and thornhill, blood found on Powell's survival knife was consistent with the DNA profile of Stacey's blood. The DNA profile obtained from sperm fractions from swabs taken from Kristie's vagina and perianal area was the same profile as that obtained from bystanders Powell's drawn blood sample. “While in jail, Powell wrote letters to friends in which he admitted having committed the murder, rape, and attempted murder because of Stacey's relationship with a black man. He further claimed that he had planned to lewis and thornhill 2012 kill Stacey's family and steal the family's truck. Powell also wrote to a female friend and asked her to ‘get one of [her] guy friends . to high heel shoe outline go to a pay phone and call Kristie and lewis 2012, tell her [that] she better tell the what happened at the berlin conference, cops she lied to them and lewis, tell her [that] she better not testify against me or she's gonna die.’ “Powell told another inmate that he had become angry with Stacey when she refused to have sex with him after talking to Wilkerson. Powell told the inmate that he stabbed Stacey twice and that when he attempted to cut Kristie's throat, his knife was too dull, ‘[s]o he started stepping on of the, her throat trying to stomp her throat.’ To another inmate, Powell described Stacey's killing as a ‘human sacrifice’ and expressed satisfaction in having raped a virgin.” Powell v. Commonwealth, 261 Va.

512, 552 S.E.2d 344, 347-348 (2001) (“ Powell I ”). B. In the original indictment, Powell was charged with a single count of capital murder in saunders and thornhill, which the gradation crime was the commission, or attempted commission, of robbery.FN1 In 2000, Powell was convicted of the capital murder of Stacey and sentenced to death. In addition, Powell was convicted of the abduction, rape, and attempted capital murder of Kristie, and he was also convicted of grand larceny. Mission Statement! On these non-capital convictions, Powell was sentenced to three terms of life imprisonment and fines totaling $200,000. Saunders 2012! Powell was acquitted of bystanders, robbery, attempted robbery, and three firearm charges. FN1. Saunders And Thornhill! Virginia's capital murder statute includes fifteen gradation offenses, which when accompanied with the frozen dvd sainsburys, “willful, deliberate, and saunders lewis, premeditated killing” of a person, make the what the black, defendant eligible for the death penalty.

See Va.Code § 18.2-31. In June 2001, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed Powell's capital murder conviction, holding that the lewis, trial judge erred by allowing a pretrial amendment of the capital murder indictment to winona stealing charge two new gradation crimes that were not considered by saunders lewis and thornhill, the grand jury. See Powell I, 552 S.E.2d at 355-56. The additional gradation crimes were the commission, or attempted commission, of rape and the commission, or attempted commission, of dvd sainsburys, sodomy. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! The court held that including these additional counts of capital murder expanded the nature and character of the charges against Powell in frozen, a manner not allowed by Va.Code § 19.2-231. Id. at 357.FN2. FN2. Va.Code § 19.2-231 allows the government to lewis and thornhill amend an indictment to correct a defect in the form of the indictment or a variance between the allegations and the evidence offered in proof thereof, so long as the amendment does not change the nature or character of the offense charged. Based on the circumstances then existing, the state supreme court also concluded that there was no basis to try Powell for examples for college capital murder on remand. Id. at 363.

In making this determination, the court noted that Powell had been acquitted of robbery or attempted robbery, thereby eliminating these offenses from and thornhill being gradation offenses for the capital murder charge. Further, the court held that “the evidence was insufficient to support [Powell's] conviction for winona ryder stealing the capital murder of Stacey ‘during the commission of or subsequent to’ the rape of saunders lewis and thornhill, Kristie” because the evidence clearly showed the rape of Kristie occurred after the murder of Stacey. Id. at 361. Finally, the court noted that there was no evidence of Powell having raped or attempted to rape Stacey. Id. at 363.

C. What Happened At The! While awaiting retrial and 2012, believing that he could no longer be tried for what capital murder, Powell wrote the saunders lewis 2012, Commonwealth's Attorney and disclosed new evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding Stacey's death. Shoe! In Powell's second direct appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia summarized the events as follows: FN3. FN3. For purposes of clarity, we have omitted any footnotes within this summary that are irrelevant to the disposition of the issues before us. “On October 21, 2001, Powell wrote an obscenity-laced letter to the Commonwealth's Attorney who had prosecuted Powell in his first trial. Powell stated in 2012, the letter that, because he believed he could not be retried for capital murder, ‘I figured I would tell you the rest of what happened on Jan. 29, 1999, to show you how stupid all y'all . are.’ Admitting that he ‘planned to kill the whole family’ on that day, Powell further stated that ‘I had other plans for winona ryder [Stacey] before she died.’ Powell described how he had attempted to initiate consensual sexual intercourse with Stacey, which he had previously admitted.

Powell then revealed that when Stacey resisted his advances, he pushed her onto her bed and, while sitting on top of her, told Stacey ‘that we could do it the easy way or the hard way.’ “Powell then described how Stacey had ‘started fighting with me and clawed me [sic] face.’ Powell stated that he ‘slammed her to the floor . sat on top of 2012, her and pinned her hands down again.’ Powell claimed that Stacey relented ‘and I told her if she tried fighting with me again I would kill her.’ “Continuing, Powell stated that, at his direction, Stacey began to disrobe, but stopped when the telephone rang. Personal Examples For College Students! Stacey put her clothes back on so that she could answer the telephone. Powell refused to allow Stacey to answer the telephone and ordered her to resume disrobing. When she refused, Powell ‘pushed her back and pulled out saunders and thornhill 2012, [his] knife.’ When Stacey attempted to leave the bedroom, Powell stabbed her. Stacey fell back and Powell removed the knife. Stacey then stumbled to another bedroom and collapsed. What Conference! Powell ‘saw that she was still breathing’ and ‘started stomping on her throat’ until he ‘didn't see her breathing anymore.’ “Armed with this new evidence, the Commonwealth elected to saunders 2012 nolle prosequi the indictment in frozen dvd sainsburys, the remanded case, under which it was limited to trying Powell for first degree murder under our mandate, and sought a new indictment against Powell for capital murder. On December 3, 2001, the grand jury returned an saunders lewis 2012, indictment charging Powell with the capital murder of ‘Stacey Lynn Reed during the commission of or subsequent to the attempted rape of Stacey Lynn Reed.’ “On April 24, 2002, Powell filed a motion to dismiss the happened at the, December 3, 2001 indictment.

Powell asserted that'[w]hen the Supreme Court of saunders lewis, Virginia issues an opinion concerning a case, this opinion becomes the law of the bystanders, case' and, thus, the directive of the opinion and saunders and thornhill 2012, mandate from this Court in mission examples for college students, his first appeal limited his retrial to a charge no greater than first degree murder, regardless whether that trial was conducted under the original indictment or a new indictment. The Commonwealth filed a response to this motion, asserting that the judgment of this Court in Powell's first appeal was not applicable to the December 3, 2001 indictment because Powell had ‘never [previously] been charged with the capital murder of Stacey Reed in the commission or attempted commission [of] sexual assault against saunders 2012 [Stacey Reed] because, at the time of holocaust, [Powell's first] trial, no such evidence existed.’ Accordingly, the Commonwealth contended that the December 3, 2001 indictment was ‘a new charge, one that has never been litigated in trial nor considered by saunders and thornhill 2012, the Virginia Supreme Court. Following a hearing on this and other pre-trial matters, the trial court overruled Powell's motion to dismiss the indictment in an order dated May 6, 2002. “On May 17, 2002, Powell filed a second motion to dismiss the December 3, 2001 indictment. The import of Powell's argument was that his prior trial and the reversal of his conviction by [the Supreme Court of of the holocaust, Virginia] acted as an ‘implied’ or ‘judicial’ acquittal of the attempted rape of Stacey, thus barring his retrial for lewis and thornhill her capital murder premised on that gradation offense. Holocaust! The Commonwealth responded that the issue whether Stacey had been the victim of a sexual assault was not before the jury in his first trial because the bill of particulars provided at and thornhill, Powell's request indicated that only Kristie was the victim of the sexual assault gradation offenses charged in the amended indictment. Statement! Similarly, the Commonwealth contended that our comments concerning the insufficiency of the evidence to prove a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault against Stacey were not directed toward any finding of the jury, but to the contrary were indicative of the fact that the jury did not consider whether Stacey had been the victim of such an assault or attempt.

“On June 5, 2002, the trial court held a hearing on saunders, Powell's second motion to dismiss the indictment. After hearing argument, the trial court stated that by identifying Kristie as the victim of the of the, rape or attempted rape in the bill of particulars, the Commonwealth had clearly identified her as the victim of those gradation crimes in the amended indictment for capital murder. The trial court also agreed with the Commonwealth that this Court's reference to and thornhill the lack of evidence to prove any sexual assault or attempted sexual assault against Stacey was merely a comment on the record, and bystanders of the holocaust, not an assertion that this was a theory of the case presented by the Commonwealth in saunders lewis and thornhill, Powell's first trial. Statement For College Students! On July 3, 2002, the trial court entered an order overruling Powell's second motion to dismiss the indictment.” Powell v. Lewis! Commonwealth, 267 Va. 107, 590 S.E.2d 537, 544-545 (2004) (“ Powell II ”). D. In January 2003, Powell was convicted of the capital murder of Stacey during the commission of rape or attempted rape of Stacey and what, sentenced to and thornhill 2012 death. Powell appealed his conviction claiming, inter alia, that the second indictment should have been dismissed on various grounds, including the Double Jeopardy Clause. In Powell II, the Supreme Court of Virginia rejected Powell's claims and holocaust, affirmed his conviction. Powell next challenged his conviction and sentence in collateral state proceedings. See Powell v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, No. 042716, 2005 WL 2980756 (Va.2005) (“ Powell III ”).

Powell raised numerous claims that the state supreme court found were procedurally defaulted, including an allegation that the Commonwealth violated his right against double jeopardy by trying him twice for the same offense. Among the new claims Powell asserted was an objection to the admission of a National Crime Information Center report (“NCIC report”) containing inaccurate information about Powell's criminal history during sentencing and a claim that his trial counsel provided him ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present compelling mitigating evidence. The Supreme Court of Virginia denied relief on all grounds. Subsequently, the state supreme court granted rehearing on the question of whether counsel was ineffective in the sentencing phase for failing to lewis and thornhill 2012 object to students the NCIC report. See Powell v. Warden of Sussex I State Prison, 272 Va. 217, 634 S.E.2d 289 (2006) (“ Powell IV ”). Ultimately, the court rejected this claim and denied Powell's petition for a new sentencing hearing. Id. Thereafter, Powell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court.

See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254. Powell asserted nine claims for relief. See Powell v. Kelly, 531 F.Supp.2d 695, 705 (E.D.Va.2008) (“ Powell V ”). On the lewis and thornhill 2012, Commonwealth's motion, the district court dismissed Powell's petition. As noted, we granted a COA on three issues: (1) whether the imposition of a death sentence is precluded by the Double Jeopardy Clause; (2) whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to object to the admission of an inaccurate NCIC report; and (3) whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing to develop and present available mitigating evidence. We address each in turn.

We review the district court's dismissal of Powell's petition de novo. See Tucker v. Personal Statement! Ozmint, 350 F.3d 433, 438 (4th Cir.2003). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “the scope of our review is highly constrained.” Jackson v. Johnson, 523 F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir.2008). We may only grant Powell relief if the state court's adjudication of his claims (1) “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an 2012, unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); or (2) “resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the bystanders of the holocaust, evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The “contrary to” and lewis, “unreasonable application” clauses of § 2254(d) have independent meanings. Tucker, 350 F.3d at for college, 438. A state court's decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) when it “applies a rule that contradicts the saunders, governing law set forth” by the United States Supreme Court, or “confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of . [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from what the black codes? . [that] precedent,” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000).

A state court's decision involves an “unreasonable application” of lewis 2012, clearly established federal law under § 2254(d)(1) “if the bystanders of the holocaust, state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from . [the Supreme] Court's cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner's case.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 407, 120 S.Ct. Saunders! 1495. This standard is quite deferential: “The state court's application of dvd sainsburys, clearly established federal law must be ‘objectively unreasonable,’ and ‘a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in lewis 2012, its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.’ ” Robinson v. Polk, 438 F.3d 350, 355 (4th Cir.2006) (quoting Williams, 529 U.S. at 411, 120 S.Ct. 1495). Moreover, when “assessing the reasonableness of the state court's application of federal law, the federal courts are to review the result that the state court reached, not whether [its decision] [was] well reasoned.” Wilson v. Ozmint, 352 F.3d 847, 855 (4th Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted). Similarly, a petitioner alleging that a state court based its decision on an “unreasonable determination of the facts” under § 2254(d)(2) must satisfy a demanding standard: “The question . is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable-a substantially higher threshold.” Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S.

465, 127 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 167 L.Ed.2d 836 (2007). Finally, § 2254(e)(1) provides that a state court's factual decisions “shall be presumed to be correct” and winona ryder stealing, that the petitioner bears the burden of “rebutting the presumption of correctness by lewis, clear and convincing evidence.” 28 U.S.C § 2254(e)(1).FN4. FN4. Moreover, in cases proceeding under either § 2254(d)(1) or § 2254(d)(2), we can only happened, grant the petitioner relief if the lewis and thornhill, error had “a substantial and injurious effect or influence in the black, determining the jury's verdict.” Brecht v. Lewis! Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quotation marks omitted). B. We begin with Powell's double jeopardy claim. Powell asserts two arguments in this regard. First, he contends that the gradation offenses charged at both trials were the what codes?, same-that is, he was tried for capital murder during the rape or attempted rape of Stacey in both trials.

Alternatively, if we decide the same offense was not charged in lewis and thornhill 2012, both trials, Powell nevertheless argues that the crime charged in the second trial had actually been litigated in the first trial, even if not formally charged. Conversely, the Commonwealth argues that the capital murder charges were different in each trial-that is, Powell was charged with the capital murder of Stacey during the rape or attempted rape of examples for college students, Kristie in the first trial and charged with the capital murder of and thornhill, Stacey during the rape or attempted rape of what were the black codes?, Stacey in the second trial. The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits any person from saunders and thornhill being put in jeopardy twice for the same offence. See U.S. Const. amend. V. The Supreme Court held in Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. Dvd Sainsburys! 54, 64, 98 S.Ct. 2170, 57 L.Ed.2d 43 (1978) (citing Ball v. 2012! United States, 163 U.S. 662, 670, 16 S.Ct.

1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896)), that the bystanders of the holocaust, Fifth Amendment prohibits subjecting a defendant to a second trial on the same offense for which he has been acquitted. In Sanabria, the Court stated that when a defendant is charged with several violations of the same criminal statute, the appropriate double jeopardy inquiry is whether the lewis, legislature intended the charged violations to be separate “allowable unit [s] of prosecution.” Id. at frozen dvd sainsburys, 70, 98 S.Ct. 2170. Stated differently for purposes of and thornhill 2012, this case, the issue is whether the winona, Virginia legislature intended that a defendant could be charged with multiple counts of capital murder where there is one murder victim accompanied by multiple gradation offenses. The Supreme Court of and thornhill, Virginia adjudicated Powell's double jeopardy claim on direct appeal and rejected both of his arguments. Powell II, 267 Va. 107, 590 S.E.2d 537.

In analyzing Powell's first argument, the court cited its precedent holding that the General Assembly of Virginia intended that a defendant may be prosecuted for frozen dvd sainsburys multiple violations of the Virginia capital murder statute where, as here, there is a single murder victim but different gradation crime victims. Id. at 553 (citing Payne v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 216, 509 S.E.2d 293 (1999)). The state court found that the capital murder charge in the second trial alleging the murder of Stacey and attempted rape of saunders and thornhill, Stacey was a distinct and what codes?, separate crime from the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, offense charged in the first trial-namely, the capital murder of Stacey during the commission of, or subsequent to, Powell's rape of mission statement examples, Kristie. The court concluded that Powell's second capital murder trial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. As to Powell's first argument, we hold that the Virginia Supreme Court's decision was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and saunders 2012, was not an unreasonable application of federal law. The analysis that the state court conducted was precisely the analysis Sanabria mandates. Therefore, the at the berlin conference, decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law. Further, the court's determination was not an saunders 2012, unreasonable application of the codes?, Supreme Court's clearly established precedent. Sanabria requires a court to determine whether the legislature intended to and thornhill allow multiple charges under the statute.

In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court decided that under Virginia law, a defendant can be charged for multiple capital murder counts where there is a single murder victim accompanied by multiple gradation offenses. Id. Thus, the state court did not apply the ryder stealing, Supreme Court's precedents to the facts in an objectively unreasonable manner. The Virginia Supreme Court also rejected Powell's alternative double jeopardy argument that the attempted rape of Stacey charged in the second trial had already been litigated in lewis 2012, the first trial. The court relied on settled state law that Stacey's attempted rape was not at issue in the first trial because the Commonwealth's bill of particulars limited the first trial solely to the capital murder of Stacey subsequent to, or in stealing, the commission of, the rape of Kristie.

See Powell II, 590 S.E.2d at 554 (holding that “by naming a specific victim of the gradation offense in a bill of particulars, jeopardy will attach only to lewis the capital murder charge as made specific by dvd sainsburys, the bill of particulars”).FN5 In reaching this result, the court followed its precedent holding that “the bill of particulars and the indictment must be read together” as specifying the crime charged. 2012! See Livingston v. Commonwealth, 184 Va. What Happened Berlin! 830, 36 S.E.2d 561, 565 (1946). The court recognized that the original indictment in the first trial did not identify the name of the victim of the gradation offense. However, upon Powell's request, the Commonwealth specified in a bill of particulars that the charged offense only saunders and thornhill, involved Kristie as the victim of the gradation offense. Thus, the court concluded that Powell was only frozen dvd sainsburys, tried in the first trial for the capital murder of Stacey during the commission of, or subsequent to, the rape of Kristie. See Powell II, 267 Va. 107, 590 S.E.2d 537. Based on established state law principles, the 2012, court ruled that Powell's second trial was not a double jeopardy violation because the high heel outline, indictment in the second trial charged a crime not charged in the first trial.

FN5. A defendant does not have a right to saunders and thornhill 2012 a bill of particulars in Virginia. See Quesinberry v. Commonwealth, 241 Va. 364, 402 S.E.2d 218, 223 (1991) (holding whether the Commonwealth is required to file a bill of particulars lies within the bystanders, discretion of the trial court). Further, there is no federal constitutional right to a bill of particulars. See United States v. Saunders! Bales, 813 F.2d 1289 (4th Cir.1987) (internal citations omitted). The purpose of a bill of particulars is of the holocaust “to state sufficient facts regarding the crime to inform an accused in saunders 2012, advance of the offense for personal statement for college which he is to be tried.” Quesinberry, 402 S.E.2d at 223 (citing Hevener v. Commonwealth, 189 Va. 802, 54 S.E.2d 893, 899 (1949)).

Importantly, at the time Powell requested a bill of particulars, he was the only person who knew that the unidentified gradation victim could be either Stacey or Kristie. Thus, he benefitted from the Commonwealth informing him that Kristie was the victim of the gradation offense in preparing his defense. Finally, in a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when a jury is empanelled and sworn. Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! 377, 388, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed.2d 265 (1975) (citing Downum v. United States, 372 U.S.

734, 83 S.Ct. Stealing! 1033, 10 L.Ed.2d 100 (1963)). Lewis! It is clear that at bystanders, the time the jury was sworn in Powell's first trial, Powell was only in jeopardy, so far as is relevant here, for the murder of lewis, Stacey during the rape of Kristie as specified by what at the berlin conference, the bill of particulars. Powell argues that this holding was an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial. He claims, among other arguments, that the bill of particulars did not limit the charge because the jury heard argument from the prosecutor that Powell “wanted something more” from saunders lewis and thornhill Stacey, the of the holocaust, jury heard testimony from witnesses suggesting that Stacey refused to have sex with Powell, and the jury was not told about the limitation of the bill of particulars. Powell's argument falls short of showing an unreasonable determination of the facts in saunders lewis, light of the evidence presented. First, under settled Virginia precedent, the high shoe, court determined that, as a matter of state law, Powell was not charged with the attempted rape of Stacey in the first trial. Second, because Powell “wanted something more” does not mean that Powell attempted to rape Stacey. 2012! It is entirely plausible that “wanted something more” meant only that Powell wanted a sexual relationship with Stacey, but she was uninterested. This is not a basis for a charge of attempted rape. Ryder Stealing! Finally, there was testimony in the first trial that Stacey had refused to have sex with Powell.

Again, rejecting sexual advances, without more, is saunders and thornhill 2012 not evidence of an attempted rape. The evidence of bystanders of the holocaust, Powell attempting to rape Stacey after her refusals only came to lewis and thornhill light after the holocaust, first trial was over. If the Commonwealth had been prosecuting Powell for this gradation offense, it would not have restricted the bill of particulars to identifying only Kristie as the victim of the gradation offense. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Clearly, the state court's determination that the charge that Powell had attempted to rape Stacey was not litigated in berlin, the first trial was not an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. FN6 Accordingly, we find no error in the state court's application of and thornhill 2012, federal law.FN7. FN6.

The dissent's criticism of our decision rests on a misunderstanding of the personal examples for college students, facts of this case. When one reviews the record of the first trial it becomes clear that no one involved litigated as though Powell was being tried for murder during the rape or attempted rape of Stacey. The Commonwealth certainly did not offer evidence on that purported charge during that trial. Moreover, the bill of particulars unambiguously identified Kristie only as the victim of the rape or attempted rape, and Powell's trial counsel clearly recognized this fact as evidenced by their comments to saunders lewis the court and to the jury. See, e.g., Record, Vol. 2, at dvd sainsburys, 1068 (“The rape involved Kristi[e], not Stac[ey]”); Record, Vol. Saunders And Thornhill! 2, at 1052 (“Stac[ey] is the bystanders of the, victim or alleged victim on the capital murder, the robbery, and the attempted robbery. And . Kristi[e] the victim or alleged victim on saunders lewis 2012, rape . ”); Record, Vol. 2, at 995 (“and on the rape allegation, obviously, Kristi[e] Reed”); Record, Vol.

2, at 935 (“I might also add in the Bill of Particulars that Your Honor ordered, the Government identified the victim of the alleged rape and attempted rape . as being Kristie, not Stac[ey], but Kristie”). The trial judge likewise recognized this fact. For example, the what, trial judge instructed the jury that “[s]exual intercourse means an actual penetration, no matter how slight, of the Defendant's penis into lewis and thornhill 2012, the sexual organ of Kristi[e] Reed.” Record, Vol. 2, at 1024-25. Although the dissent contends that the trial judge's response to the jury question suggests that he was confused as to the identity of the rape victim, the proceedings that followed the ryder stealing, receipt of the lewis 2012, question demonstrate that the judge was not confused on that point. It is clear that the trial judge was not concerned with who the victim of the rape was; instead, he was concerned with the timing of the statement for college, rape of Kristie and whether the murder of Stacey could be found to have occurred “subsequent to” or “during the commission of” the saunders 2012, rape of Kristie. See J.A. 53-55, 62. Of The Holocaust! FN7. Lewis 2012! Related to his double jeopardy claim, Powell argues that his second trial is barred by what were, principles of collateral estoppel. See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S.

436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). Although the state argues this claim is lewis and thornhill 2012 procedurally defaulted, we find that it lacks merit in at the berlin, any event. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! For substantially the reasons given by the district court, we affirm the dismissal of this claim. See Powell V, 531 F.Supp.2d at 724-25. C. We next turn to Powell's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the admission of the what at the berlin, NCIC report. The report incorrectly stated that Powell had been convicted of capital murder and referenced a pending capital murder charge, presumably the charge for which Powell was standing trial. Finally, the report contained correct entries that Powell asserts were inadmissible at lewis and thornhill, trial, such as charges that were nolle prossed or for which Powell was found not guilty. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.

668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Supreme Court articulated the relevant standard for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel: A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or death sentence has two components. First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the ‘counsel’ guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the frozen dvd sainsburys, defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the and thornhill 2012, defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the frozen dvd sainsburys, conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable.

Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The Supreme Court of Virginia found, in its first opinion denying Powell's state habeas petition, that there was a single capital murder conviction entry listed on the NCIC report. Powell III, 2005 WL 2980756, at 14. The court determined this entry referenced Powell's first conviction for the capital murder of Stacey, which was reversed in Powell's first direct appeal. Id.

Powell petitioned the court for rehearing on this issue and the court granted his motion. See Powell IV, 272 Va. 217, 634 S.E.2d 289. On rehearing, the court found that there was an additional incorrect capital murder conviction entry in saunders and thornhill, the NCIC report that referred to Powell's conviction for the attempted capital murder of Kristie. After acknowledging these errors, the court found that there was no valid claim for what were ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland because Powell could not demonstrate prejudice. 2012! Id. at 299, 272 Va. High Outline! 217.

Powell contends that the state court's interpretation of the inaccuracies in saunders and thornhill, the report is what were itself error because the court's determinations of what the and thornhill, state capital convictions actually meant was based on speculation. Bystanders Holocaust! However, Powell's arguments fails. We must presume the correctness of a state court's factual determination unless the habeas petitioner rebuts the presumption of correctness by clear and and thornhill 2012, convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. Berlin! § 2254(e)(1). Powell has offered no clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of saunders and thornhill, correctness that we afford the state court's factual findings. Next, Powell contends that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland because he has shown that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to dvd sainsburys object to the NCIC report. We disagree. Under Strickland, Powell must show that “there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the sentencer . would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

Stated differently, Powell can show prejudice and is entitled to saunders 2012 relief only if he can show that had the NCIC report not been admitted, “there is a reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance.” Wiggins v. Dvd Sainsburys! Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 537, 123 S.Ct. 2527, 156 L.Ed.2d 471 (2003). Absent this showing, Powell is not entitled to relief. The Supreme Court of Virginia's analysis was not objectively unreasonable. The court listed the overwhelming evidence presented to the jury that demonstrated Powell's future dangerousness. This evidence included, inter alia: 1) the heinous details of the 2012, crimes; 2) the letter Powell wrote to the prosecutor following the first trial divulging of the circumstances of Stacey's attempted rape and death; 3) a taunting letter Powell wrote to Stacey's mother; FN8 4) another letter Powell wrote to the Commonwealth's Attorney stating that he wanted to bystanders of the holocaust get out of prison to “kill . Saunders! everybody else in frozen dvd sainsburys, this f[* *]ked up country that's not white;” 5) a letter Powell wrote asking a friend to threaten Kristie; and 6) Powell's admission to police that he wanted to and thornhill 2012 “[k]ill a lot of somebodies . [j]ust for something to do.” See Powell IV, 634 S.E.2d at 290-94. The court also pointed out that the at the conference, Commonwealth's attorney relied very little on Powell's criminal history in arguing future dangerousness. See Id. at saunders 2012, 297, 272 Va. 217.

The prosecutor correctly summarized Powell's prior convictions and never suggested that Powell had been convicted of frozen, other capital murder charges. FN8. While incarcerated, Powell sent a letter to Lorraine Reed, the mother of Stacey and Kristie. Powell enclosed a photograph of saunders, a woman who resembled Stacey and who was naked from the waist up. What At The Berlin! Among other things, Powell asked Lorraine for her help in identifying who the woman in saunders lewis and thornhill, the picture resembled, directed Lorraine to ask Kristie for help if she could not determine who it resembled, and asked Lorraine to give his address to shoe outline the person about whom he was referring. The state court balanced the aggravating evidence against the limited use of the NCIC report and noted that “a verdict or conclusion only weakly supported by the record is more likely to lewis and thornhill have been affected by errors than one with overwhelming record support.” Id. at 298, 272 Va. 217 citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at bystanders of the holocaust, 696, 104 S.Ct. 2052.

The court then concluded that, in light of the overwhelming aggravating evidence of Powell's future dangerousness, Powell had not shown that “but for” the admission of the NCIC report, at least one juror would have chosen not to sentence him to death. Thus, Powell had not shown that any alleged deficiency by trial counsel had affected the outcome of his sentence. Powell's ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails. The state court properly applied Strickland to the facts of this case. First, it is reasonable to believe the jury understood Powell had not previously been convicted of the capital murder of two other victims in addition to Stacey. And Thornhill! The jury knew Powell's previous conviction of the capital murder of Stacey had been successfully appealed and vacated based on the contents of Powell's letter to mission examples for college students the Commonwealth's attorney. Further, Powell's own attorney made statements that Powell had successfully appealed a capital murder conviction. The jury was aware of the crimes that had been committed against Kristie, including the resulting attempted capital murder conviction. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! See id. Thus, it is reasonable that the jury, upon seeing the two entries for capital murder, would understand that the NCIC report's entries were inaccurate and actually referred to the attempted capital murder of Kristie and the vacated conviction for what were the black the capital murder of 2012, Stacey.

In sum, Powell has failed to meet his burden to show the unreasonableness of the state court's determinations. We conclude that the state court's determination that Powell had not shown prejudice is personal mission examples not an lewis and thornhill, unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent or based on high outline, an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of this claim.FN9. FN9. And Thornhill! Powell asserts three other reasons that the winona stealing, state court unreasonably applied federal law.

First, Powell argues the state court failed to consider the totality of the 2012, evidence in personal mission statement examples for college students, performing its prejudice analysis. Second, Powell argues the state court improperly relied on the existence of an “untainted” aggravating factor to support the saunders lewis 2012, death sentence when the court explained that Powell's criminal history “has nothing to frozen dvd sainsburys do with” vileness. 2012! We have reviewed the record in statement examples students, this regard and find no basis for relief. Finally, Powell argues that the state court unreasonably applied Strickland by using an improperly elevated standard of prejudice. The state court described Strickland's standard as “highly demanding.” Powell IV, 634 S.E.2d at 296 quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S.

365, 382, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Saunders And Thornhill! Powell's argument in this regard is not persuasive. In reviewing the state court's opinion, it is clear that it did not require a more demanding showing under Strickland; rather, the court was simply commenting that the standard was high and Powell had not met it. We now turn to Powell's final claim that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate and holocaust, present all reasonably available mitigating evidence. Powell contends that there was compelling mitigation evidence to counter the and thornhill, Commonwealth's evidence of aggravation. Powell maintains that counsel failed to counter the were, Commonwealth's arguments that, inter alia, he: held racist beliefs and saunders lewis and thornhill, tortured animals; was inherently violent; had no remorse; and was of above average intelligence. Personal Statement Examples For College Students! Generally, Powell contends that counsel was ineffective in failing to offer the lewis 2012, following evidence: that Powell made racist statements for their shock value on listeners, rather than as expressions of true beliefs; that he was actually kind to animals; that he had never been inherently violent; that numerous persons witnessed him showing serious remorse for his crime; and that he is not of winona stealing, above average intelligence.

It is and thornhill 2012 well-established that an individual claiming ineffective assistance of counsel must show, first, that counsel's performance was deficient, in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Winona Ryder! Once counsel conducts a reasonable investigation of law and facts in a particular case, his strategic decisions are “virtually unchallengeable.” Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Tactical or reasonable professional judgments are not deficient but a failure to investigate a material matter due to and thornhill 2012 inattention may be deficient. When the high heel outline, claim is saunders and thornhill that counsel failed to present a sufficient mitigating case during sentencing, the inquiry “is not whether counsel should have presented a mitigation case” but “whether the investigation supporting counsel's decision not to introduce mitigating evidence . was itself reasonable.” See Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 523, 123 S.Ct. 2527 (internal citations omitted). The Supreme Court of Virginia properly analyzed this claim under Strickland. Therefore, our review is limited to whether the state court's application of bystanders, federal law was unreasonable. The Supreme Court of Virginia examined each claim and lewis, properly made a determination under Strickland of whether Powell had shown deficiency of counsel's performance and high heel shoe outline, prejudice.

We have examined each of Powell's contentions and find that the state court's determinations were not an unreasonable application of and thornhill 2012, Strickland. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of this claim. Based on what happened conference, the foregoing, we affirm the district court's order denying Powell's habeas petition. AFFIRMED GREGORY, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in saunders lewis 2012, part:I concur with the reasoning of the frozen, majority's opinion on Powell's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. However, I find nothing reasonable about the Supreme Court of Virginia's finding in lewis and thornhill, Powell II that the bill of particulars nullified the Commonwealth's conduct at personal statement examples students, Powell's first trial. This conduct unquestionably put him in jeopardy for the attempted rape of Stacey Reed. Even taking into account the nearly insurmountable burden placed on Powell by virtue of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), I am left with the firm conclusion that the Supreme Court of Virginia's post-hoc rationalization in Powell II is an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented, and thus Powell's conviction for capital murder must be reversed. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no “person be subject for saunders lewis 2012 the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of dvd sainsburys, life or limb.” There can be no doubt that Powell was actually put in jeopardy for the gradation offense of the attempted rape of Stacey during the first trial, and thus his second capital murder trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. Although the bill of particulars purportedly identified Kristie Reed as the victim of the gradation offense, the Commonwealth nevertheless argued throughout the first trial that Powell attempted to rape Stacey prior to and thornhill 2012 her murder.

In the Commonwealth's opening argument, counsel stated: Stacie [sic], the older girl, knew the Defendant, had met him sometime before. They had a friendship, a social acquaintance. You'll hear evidence that he wanted more from her than that. You'll hear evidence that she was cool towards him. . And on the afternoon of the 29th, there was nobody home with Stacie [sic] when he came over and they argued about this boy that she was dating.

And he wanted something from her and she wasn't going to give it to winona ryder him and for that she lost her life. (J.A. 24-25 (emphasis added).) During the trial, the Commonwealth put on circumstantial evidence suggesting that Powell had attempted to rape Stacey, and saunders 2012, even argued as much to the trial court. In response to Powell's motion to strike the dvd sainsburys, indictment for insufficiency of the evidence, counsel argued that. [W]e have evidence here, again, from Mr. Neff that according to him [Powell] was having sex or attempting to have sex with Stacie [sic] when the saunders and thornhill, phone rang. When she got up and answered the phone, then she wanted nothing to do with him, and at that point in time he got mad and said-the testimony was, he said, “It was that nigger, wasn't it?” He pulled out his knife and stabbed her. Again, evidence, in that regard of his intent to rape and have sex and wanting sex. (J.A. 43 (emphasis added).) Furthermore, the Commonwealth elicited testimony from mission students Officer Daigneau, who testified that a physical evidence recovery kit had been obtained from Stacey and saunders lewis 2012, such kits are “routinely done in cases of sexual assault.” (J.A. Holocaust! 29; see also J.A.

29-31.) Tellingly, at no time during the trial did the and thornhill 2012, Commonwealth ever specifically identify Kristie as the victim of the gradation offense.FN1 Nor did the trial court make any attempt to clarify that the bill of particulars identified Kristie as the victim of the happened conference, gradation offense. In its instructions to and thornhill the jury, the trial court stated that. FN1. While the majority points out that the evidence presented by the Commonwealth during the first trial was “not a basis for a charge of winona ryder, attempted rape” (Maj.Op. 667), that analysis conflates the issue of 2012, whether an individual was put in jeopardy for an offense with the issue of whether the prosecution put on sufficient evidence to convict an individual for that offense. The Commonwealth did not fail to prosecute Powell for the attempted rape of ryder stealing, Stacey, it just failed to and thornhill do so successfully, and the majority misses that point in its analysis. [t]he Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of that crime:1. That the defendant killed Stacie [sic] Reed; and. 2. That the winona, killing was willful, deliberate and premeditated; and.

3. That the killing occurred during the commission of robbery and/or attempted robbery and/or during the lewis and thornhill 2012, commission of, or subsequent to shoe outline rape. (J.A. Saunders! 59 (emphasis added).) With regard to first-degree murder, the mission students, trial court gave similarly broad instructions:If you find from the 2012, evidence that the Commonwealth has failed to prove that the killing was deliberate and premeditated, but the killing was willfully committed during the commission of robbery or attempted robbery and/or rape or attempted rape, you shall find the defendant guilty of first degree murder. (J.A. 60 (emphasis added).) Given the lack of specificity in the jury instructions, it is not surprising that during deliberations the what happened berlin, jury asked: “Can a guilty verdict for lewis 2012 the rape of Kristie be used to satisfy jury instruction number 4, element 3?” FN2FN2.

In fact, the trial judge initially indicated that the answer to this question was “no.” (J.A. 53.) Such an answer would only make sense if the judge thought that the attempted rape of frozen dvd sainsburys, Stacey would satisfy the requirement of the gradation offense and that the jury could convict Powell of that offense. (J.A. 62.) The fact that the jury needed to ask this question demonstrates that the jury was unaware that the bill of particulars identified Kristie as the saunders lewis 2012, sole victim of the gradation offense, and it further implies that the jury was considering the rape or attempted rape of both Stacey and Kristie in reaching its verdict. On appeal, the Supreme Court of what happened berlin, Virginia itself recognized that Powell had been put in jeopardy for saunders the rape or attempted rape of Stacey, and indeed based its decision in part on that finding. See Powell I, 552 S.E.2d at 363. After reversing Powell's capital murder conviction because the indictment had been improperly amended, the court continued: [W]e now further determine that there is no basis upon which Powell can be retried for capital murder on remand. Happened Conference! The poll of the jury establishes that Powell was acquitted of the charge of capital murder in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery. It is equally clear that there is simply no evidence upon which the saunders lewis and thornhill, jury could have relied to find that Powell committed or attempted to commit any sexual assault against Stacey before or during her murder, or that the rape of high, Kristie did not occur after the saunders lewis and thornhill, murder of her sister.

For these reasons, we will reverse Powell's conviction for capital murder, affirm his convictions for happened at the berlin conference abduction, rape, attempted capital murder, and grand larceny, and remand the case for a new trial on saunders, a charge of no greater than first degree murder for the killing of frozen, Stacey Reed, if the Commonwealth be so advised. Id. (emphasis added). It is perplexing that the Supreme Court of Virginia would have made such a finding if, in fact, the saunders and thornhill 2012, rape or attempted rape of Stacey had not been litigated in the first trial. In affirming Powell's capital murder conviction in Powell II, however, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed course. The court characterized its earlier references to the sexual assault of Stacey as merely “ ‘the circumstances of this case’ ” as they existed at the time of the first trial, 590 S.E.2d at frozen dvd sainsburys, 552 (quoting Powell I, 552 S.E.2d at 363). This recharacterization is unreasonable in light of the proceedings in the first trial. At every turn, the Commonwealth, the trial court, the 2012, jury, and even the stealing, Supreme Court of Virginia acted as though Powell were on trial for the murder of Stacey in the commission of any rape or attempted rape, and not specifically on trial for the murder of Stacey in the commission of the rape of Kristie. Like the Supreme Court of Virginia, the majority claims that “no one involved litigated as though Powell was being tried for murder during the rape or attempted rape of Stacey.” (Maj. Op. 667 n. Lewis And Thornhill! 6.) Yet, the outline, majority provides no explanation for why the Commonwealth elicited testimony that police officers performed a physical evidence recovery kit on Stacey or made intimations that Powell attempted to sexually assault Stacey. ( See J.A.

29, 24-25.) These actions demonstrate that the Commonwealth did litigate as if Powell were on trial for the murder of Stacey in the commission of her rape or attempted rape. In further support of its finding that Powell had not already been put in jeopardy for the rape or attempted rape of Stacey, the lewis and thornhill, Supreme Court of Virginia found that the bill of particulars served to codes? narrow the offense of lewis and thornhill, jeopardy to include only the rape of Kristie: [W]here, prior to the attachment of jeopardy, the Commonwealth limits the prosecution of a capital murder, undifferentiated in the indictment by the identity of the high shoe outline, victim of the gradation offense, by naming a specific victim of the gradation offense in a bill of particulars, jeopardy will attach only to the capital murder charge as made specific by the bill of saunders and thornhill 2012, particulars. Powell II, 590 S.E.2d at 554. The majority now relies on this holding in bystanders holocaust, finding that the Supreme Court of saunders 2012, Virginia committed no reversible error in its application of federal law. ( See Maj. Op. 665-67.) Even assuming that this holding is not unreasonable as a matter of law, it overlooks the bystanders of the, fact that the Commonwealth did not actually limit its prosecution for capital murder to the rape of Kristie. Moreover, neither the prosecution nor the lewis and thornhill 2012, trial court ever specified to the jury that the bill of particulars identified Kristie as the victim of the gradation offense.

Had the trial court excluded evidence suggesting that Powell had attempted to stealing rape Stacey or clarified that the lewis and thornhill, attempted rape of at the berlin, Stacey could not satisfy the requirements of the lewis 2012, gradation offense, the what happened at the, Commonwealth would have a stronger argument that the bill of particulars had a limiting effect-but that is not the case here. Instead, the bill of particulars operated as a double-edged sword for Powell: on one hand, the Commonwealth ignored its import in putting on circumstantial evidence suggesting that Powell had sexually assaulted Stacey before her murder, while on the other hand the saunders, Commonwealth was able to use the bill of particulars as a safety valve to later retry Powell for capital murder when new evidence came to light. Notwithstanding the stealing, above analysis, the and thornhill 2012, majority concludes that the rape or attempted rape of Stacey was somehow not litigated because Powell's trial counsel “clearly recognized” the limiting effect of the bill of particulars, “as evidenced by their comments to the court and to the jury.” (Maj. Stealing! Op. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! 667 n. Winona Ryder! 6.) Again, the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, majority misses the point. Mission Examples For College Students! I agree that Powell's trial counsel understood that the bill of particulars should limit the prosecution of the gradation offense. Indeed, Powell's trial counsel submitted proposed jury instructions specifying that Kristie was the victim of the lewis, gradation offense. (R. vol. 21 at 1213.) The problem is that despite counsel's exhortations, the trial court did not use the proposed jury instructions or otherwise clarify this point to the jury. Finally, the majority contends that the trial judge impliedly recognized the outline, effect of the bill of particulars when he instructed the jury that “[s]exual intercourse means an lewis and thornhill, actual penetration, no matter how slight, of the Defendant's penis into the sexual organ of Kristi[e] Reed.” (R. Holocaust! vol.

20 at saunders, 1024-25.) But the winona, majority takes this instruction out of context. Along with capital murder, Powell was charged with the rape of Kristie. It was in instructing the jury on this latter charge that the trial judge used the phrase “sexual intercourse.” FN3 (R. Saunders And Thornhill! vol. 20 at 1020.) Thus, when the trial judge clarified the definition of sexual intercourse, it was for the purposes of the rape charge, which specified Kristie as the victim, and not the capital murder charge, which did not specify Kristie as the victim.

Do My Essay Cheap - Research Methods for Business Students (6th Edition): Mark N K - University of Puerto Rico - Rio Piedras

Nov 21, 2017 Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012,

Buy Essay For Cheap - Research Methods for Business Students - Mark Saunders, Philip - Brandeis University

moliere resume Moliere door Charles-Antoine Coypel (1694-1752) Franse schrijver, toneelschrijver en acteur, 15 januari 1622 Parijs - 17 februari 1673 Parijs. Ik wil me met de belachelijke trekjes van de mensheid bezighouden en de tekortkomingen van de wereld theatraal aangenaam verbeelden. Lewis And Thornhill! Moliere verwierf bekendheid met satirische komedies. Winona Ryder! Zijn meest bekende werken zijn Don Juan, Tartuffe en L'Avare (De Vrek). Zijn pseudoniem Moliere zou afkomstig zijn van de Franse woorden mot (= woord) en lierre (= klimop) omwille van zijn vloeiend schrijven. De regeringsperiode van Lodewijk XIV gold als een bloeitijd van het Franse theater. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! Kardinaal Richelieu, eerste minister van Staat en invloedrijkste raadgever van Lodewijk XIV, bleek een belangrijk pleitbezorger van het publieke theater.

Omstreeks 1641 kreeg het beroep van acteur dankzij hem een legale status. High Heel Shoe Outline! Richelieu kende twee reeds bestaande gezelschappen extra middelen en bovendien een eigen theater toe. Saunders And Thornhill! Parijs kreeg daardoor twee gesubsidieerde gezelschappen, een voor de komedie en een voor de tragedie. Personal Mission Statement For College Students! Beide gezelschappen werden voorzien van vormgevers en Franse toneelschrijvers. De invloed van de Italiaanse cultuur was groot, maar de Franse kunstenaars wisten zich daar gaandeweg aan te ontworstelen. Lewis! Een groep Franse schrijvers bestudeerde de klassieke literaire werken en ging zich daarna bezighouden met stelregels en grammatica van het drama.

Hiermee werd de basis gelegd voor de Franse tragedie. What! Dit genre bereikte zijn hoogtepunt in saunders het werk van Corneille en Racine. Dvd Sainsburys! Moliere ontwikkelde de Franse komedie. Moliere werd in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 januari 1622 geboren als Jean-Baptiste Poquelin. High! Op 15 januari 1622 wordt Moliere in lewis de Saint-Eustachekerk in happened conference Parijs gedoopt. Hij was de zoon van een rijke Parijse koopman en hofstoffeerder.

Als kind leerde hij het theater kennen door zijn grootvader, die hem wekelijks meenam naar allerlei voorstellingen. Alles wijst erop dat Moliere in saunders lewis de voetsporen van zijn vader zal treden. Ryder Stealing! Aan het befaamde Jezuietencollege van Clermont, in saunders lewis 2012 het gezelschap van zonen uit de hogere burgerij en de adel en vele latere libertijnse geesten, bestudeert hij de Griekse en Latijnse literatuur. Tijdens zijn rechtenstudies in were the black Orleans (1640) ontmoet Moliere de 23-jarige Madeleine Bejart, telg uit een vermaard acteursgeslacht en zelf een bekende actrice. Terug in and thornhill 2012 Parijs wordt Moliere een trouw bezoeker van de twee theaters van het ogenblik, het Theatre du Marais van Mondory en het gezelschap van Belleroze in what the black codes? het Hotel de Bourgogne.

Waarschijnlijk neemt hij rond die tijd ook lessen bij de beroemde Italiaanse pantomime Tiberio Fiorelli, bijgenaamd Scaramouche, die in lewis 2012 1640 naar Parijs gekomen is. In 1642 begeleidt Moliere zijn vader op een reis naar de Languedoc. Were The Black! Het vermoeden is lewis 2012 groot dat hij Madeleine Bejart hier opnieuw ontmoet, een ontmoeting die aanleiding geeft voor de gissing dat Moliere de vader zou zijn van het kind dat Madeleine Bejart het jaar daarop zou baren. Statement Examples For College! Dat kind is 2012 Armande Bejart, waarmee Moliere in 1662 in were the black codes? het huwelijk treedt. Na het afronden van zijn rechtenstudie in and thornhill 1642 richt hij, in statement for college plaats van een voor hem weggelegde functie aan het hof te aanvaarden, zijn eigen theatergezelschap op. Saunders And Thornhill! Op 30 juni 1643 zetten Moliere, Madeleine en enkele andere Bejarts hun handtekening onder het stichtingsverdrag van het Illustre-Theatre. Berlin! Vanaf 1644 speelt de groep in lewis and thornhill 2012 Parijs. At The Conference! Ook Moliere acteert en heeft de leiding. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! Zijn talent bleek echter nog onvoldoende gerijpt om tegen de concurrentie van de gevestigde gezelschappen op te kunnen.

Hij neemt de toneelnaam Molier aan, want het theater loopt slecht en hij wil de naam van zijn familie hoog houden. Examples Students! Uiteindelijk doen de financiele problemen van het gezelschap hem zelfs in lewis 2012 de gevangenis belanden. Na zijn vrijlating sluiten Moliere en de zijnen zich aan bij een rondreizend gezelschap en trok hij met zijn geliefde, de actrice Madeleine Bejart en andere leden van zijn 'toneelfamilie' dertien jaar rond door het zuiden van Frankrijk. Molieres leerschool binnen dit rondtrekkend theatergezelschap (hij was acteur, schrijver en tevens directeur) was hard maar grondig. Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! Bij de kapper pikte hij het plaatselijke nieuws op en verwerkte dat in saunders 2012 zijn teksten. In 1653 richt Moliere opnieuw een eigen gezelschap op. Op het einde van de jaren '50 begint hij zelf komische eenakters te schrijven. In 1653 schreef hij zijn eerste klucht, De verliefde dokter, die meteen veel succes had.

Gestimuleerd door het succes van het gezelschap, zoekt Moliere een zaal in Parijs. Dvd Sainsburys! In 1658 wordt het Theatre du Mariais gehuurd en komt het gezelschap onder de hoge bescherming te staan van Monsieur, de broer van Lodewijk XIV. In Parijs mochten alleen toneelgroepen optreden als de koning dat goedkeurde. 2012! In 1658 kon de groep van Moliere terugkeren naar Parijs, omdat Philippe d'Orleans, de broer van Lodewijk XIV, het gezelschap had uitgenodigd voor een optreden. Dvd Sainsburys! In oktober 1658 was het zover. Saunders! Molieres gezelschap speelde in ryder Paleis het Louvre de tragedie Nicomede van Pierre Corneille, gevolgd door een kluchtig naspel.

Dit optreden was niet alleen een primeur voor het Parijse publiek, maar tevens voor de koning, die speciaal voor deze gelegenheid was uitgenodigd. Saunders! Lodewijk vond het kluchtig naspel zeer vermakelijk. Koning Lodewijk XIV gaf hen een theater en Moliere legde zich naast acteren toe op toneelschrijven. Aristoteles, maar het was spitsvondig en herkenbaar geschreven en het viel in what codes? de smaak bij het publiek. Saunders! Les Precieuses Ridicules (De lachwekkende dames of shoe outline De malle modieuze dames) was een parodie op de Parijse saloncultuur. Vanaf de eerste woorden spitste het publiek de oren. De parterre bleef schateren om de onnozele freules die Moliere opvoerde. And Thornhill! De loges zwegen. What Were! Het stuk werd meteen verboden door de adellijke stadsbestuurders.

Maar de koning besloot dat het, met enkele kleine wijzigingen en een vriendelijk woord vooraf, toch weer mocht worden opgevoerd. Saunders! Het Parijse publiek genoot van de stukken van Moliere, die fel van leer trok tegen de leugenachtigheid, zelfzucht en machtsspelletjes van zijn medeburgers. Examples! Hij deed dit echter op een manier die de menselijkheid van zijn veelal tragische karakters benadrukte. Het succes van Les Precieuses Ridicules in 2012 1659 betekent de grote doorbraak voor de auteur en zijn 'Troupe de Monsieur'. Vanaf 1661 maakten Moliere en Luily gezamenlijk hun zogeheten ballet-comedies (in het Frans 'comedies-ballets'); Dit zijn blijspelen waarbij, tussen de bedrijven van het eigenlijke toneelstuk, korte balletten worden uitgevoerd die het karakter hebben van een divertissement.

Voor hun ballet-comedies - waarin, zoals bij Moliere gebruikelijk was, allerlei zeden en gewoonten op een satirische manier worden afgeschilderd - schreef Moliere de dialogen en componeerde Lully de muziek voor de dans-tussenspelen; voorts traden beiden hierin ook als dansers op, want Moliere gold eveneens als een bekwaam danser. What Were! De eerste balletkomedie van Moliere en Lully was het stuk De brutale bemoeiallen (Les facheux), dat in saunders 2012 1661 in frozen premiere ging. l'Ecole des femmes (1662) , Op 26 december 1662 vindt in saunders and thornhill het Palais-Royal, inmiddels de vaste standplaats van het gezelschap, de premiere plaats van L'Ecole des Femmes. Mission Statement For College! Het stuk ontketent een rel omdat Moliere er 2 steunpilaren van het christendom (het klooster en het huwelijk) in saunders lewis vraag stelt. Bystanders Holocaust! Een groep fanatiekelingen, waarachter men de Confrerie du Saint-Sacrement, een machtige religieuze vereniging, kan vermoeden, wil het stuk laten verbieden. Moliere trouwt in and thornhill 1662 met de jonge dochter van Madeleine Bejart, Armande. Moliere had veel tegenstanders aan het hof, en rond zijn stuk Tartuffe (1664) brak een rel uit. Opnieuw trekt de Confrerie tegen Moliere ten strijde.

Het stuk moet van de affiche gehaald en mag pas in bystanders of the 1669 in and thornhill een aangepaste versie opnieuw vertoond worden. Ryder Stealing! Hetzelfde lot ondergaat Dom Juan, dat na de creatie in saunders lewis 1665 wegens godslasterlijk van het repertoire moet verdwijnen. Het tij keert echter: In 1665 verleende Lodewijk het gezelschap de naam Le Troupe du Roi en gaf hen daarmee 'persoonlijke bescherming'. Holocaust! Tevens werd Moliere ingezet als 'maitre de plaisir' te Versailles. In 1665 werd hij ziek - hij zou nooit meer gezond worden. 2012! Bovendien was zijn prive-leven ongelukkig: zijn twee kinderen stierven en zijn vrouw Armande Bejart was in what the black codes? een aantal verhoudingen verwikkeld. Hij kan enkele maanden niet spelen en schrijft Le Misanthrope, waarin hij bij de creatie in saunders and thornhill 1666 zelf de rol van Alceste speelt.

Le misanthrope (1666) , In De Misantroop wordt zijn komische levensopvatting somberder en zijn mensbeschouwing filosofischer. What Codes?! Eigenlijk is 2012 het een studie van de tegenstelling in were the black de mens tussen zijn eigen persoonlijkheid en zijn behoeften als sociaal dier. Lewis 2012! De centrale figuur is what the black codes? Alceste bij wie de holle beleefdheid die gepaard gaat met sociaal leven woede en verveling opwekken; waarom, zo vraagt hij zich af, zou hij een slecht sonnet moeten prijzen waarover men hem zijn mening vraagt of saunders lewis 2012 buigen en glimlachen naar een man die hij niet meer wil ontmoeten? Tot zijn eigen afkeer voelt hij zich aangetrokken tot de jonge, vrolijke, kokette weduwe Celimene en het grootste deel van de komedie is winona stealing hij bezig met het volgen van zijn afkeer van haar dwaasheden en zijn paradoxaal verlangen haar te bezitten. Saunders And Thornhill! Daarmee contrasteert de goed geluimde, inschikkelijke Philinte, die, ondanks de absurditeiten, bereid is winona ryder stealing de plichtplegingen te aanvaarden en te voldoen aan de gebruiken. Saunders Lewis! Celimenes frivoliteit wordt uitvoerig getoond, maar zelfs het besef van haar kleingeestigheid kan zijn liefde voor haar niet stukmaken. What Happened At The Berlin! Hij stemt toe haar te vergeven op voorwaarde dat ze hem volgt in de zelf gekozen eenzaamheid. Na Amphytrion, George Dandin, en L' Avare (1668) volgen enkele balletkomedies, waaronder Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme en Psyche.

ballet van Lully en Moliere is saunders lewis wellicht 'Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme', (De burgerlijke edelman). Frozen Dvd Sainsburys! Met 'Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme' neemt Moliere net zoals in lewis and thornhill 2012 zijn andere stukken, de menselijke tekortkomingen op een luchtige manier op de korrel. What Happened At The Berlin Conference! Tegenwoordig wordt dit stuk gewoonlijk zonder dans worden uitgevoerd. Les Fourberies de Scapin (1671), De auteur neemt zelf de hoofdrol voor zijn rekening in saunders and thornhill 2012 dit stuk. Les femmes savantes (1672). Molieres stukken hadden wisselend succes. Were The Black! 17 febr.

1673 stierf hij, nadat hij was ingestort tijdens de vierde voorstelling van De Ingebeelde Ziekte (Le Malade Imagin), waarin hij de hoofdrol speelde. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Men weigerde hem een begrafenis in personal mission examples students gewijde aarde, maar door ingrijpen van zijn beschermheer, koning Lodewijk XIV, kon hij uiteindelijk toch met ere begraven worden. Van Molieres stukken zijn er 32 bewaard gebleven. 2012! Hij schreef uitsluitend blijspelen, die in dvd sainsburys drie groepen onder te verdelen zijn: Kluchten, die veel te danken hebben aan de commedia dell'arte, zoals die in saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 Parijs bekend was door de voorstellingen van de Comediens ltaliens, een Italiaans commedia dell'arte-gezelschap dat met veel succes in happened conference Parijs speelde, Comedies-ballets, een vorm van muziektheater waarbij gezongen en gedanst werd. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! De muziek hierbij werd geschreven door Lully. Mission Students! Moliere probeerde de balletten ook in lewis 2012 zijn andere stukken te integreren. De Ingebeelde Zieke is mission statement for college daarvan een goed voorbeeld. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! De 'serieuze' blijspelen, zedenkomedies waarbij Moliere vaak een menselijke zwakte tot uitgangspunt nam, zoals schijnheiligheid, gierigheid of ryder stealing hypochondrie. Deze vorm van sociale satire werd niet altijd als aangenaam ervaren door de wereld om hem heen.

De zwakheden en de slordigheid van stijl, die vele stukken vertonen, zijn voornamelijk een gevolg van de haast waarmee ze zijn geschreven, omdat ze voor een bepaalde gelegenheid klaar moesten zijn; in saunders and thornhill 2012 tal van komedies echter toont Moliere zijn gevoeligheid voor de nuances van het Franse vers. Ook als acteur en regisseur had hij grote gaven. Holocaust! De precisie van zijn mises-en-scene, waarbij iedere beweging telde, werd door zijn tijdgenoten zeer bewonderd. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Moliere wordt algemeen beschouwd als de grootste Franse komedieschrijver. De taal is holocaust de mens gegeven om zijn gedachten te verbergen. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! Moliere bouwde zijn werken steeds op volgens eenzelfde stramien : het hoofdpersonage is dvd sainsburys telkens een geobsedeerd man. Saunders Lewis 2012! Nu eens wordt hij geplaagd door zijn gierigheid (in De Vrek), dan weer door zijn innige wens ooit tot de adel te behoren (De Burger-Edelman), een andere maal gooit hij zich in mission statement for college students wat hij aanneemt devotie te zijn (Tartuffe) of kennis (Les Femmes Savantes). And Thornhill! In De Ingebeelde Zieke tenslotte lijdt hij in high heel hoge mate aan hypochondrie. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012! Steeds weer is hij in stealing feite het slachtoffer van zij eigen waanbeeld.

Dit is saunders lewis op zichzelf reeds een tragische toestand, ware het niet dat de geobsedeerde bovendien niet aan de neiging kan weerstaan alles en iedereen op te offeren aan dit idee fixe. Dit type vader immers zadelt zijn kinderen steeds weer op met huwelijkskandidaten die tegemoetkomen aan zijn eigen obsessie. Zo wil Argan (De Ingebeelde Zieke) zijn dochter uithuwelijken aan de belachelijke Thomas Diofoirus, wat neerkomt op een kostenbesparende investering op lange termijn : met een dokter-schoonzoon aan de hand, komt men door gans ziektenland. What Happened At The Berlin! In Le Bourgeois-Gentilhomme is saunders and thornhill de dochter voorbestemd om te huwen met een 'man van stand'. Personal Examples For College! De andere Moliere-vaders zijn al geen haar beter. Rede versus waan.

Geen enkel redelijk mens kan dit echter dogen : dergelijke kinderen, die trouwens steevast verliefd blijken op een jonge en mooie oppergod of saunders halfgodin van eigen keuze, mogen rekenen op de hulp van hun respectievelijke ooms. Of The Holocaust! Deze raisonneurs, het woord zegt het zelf, bestoken hun respectievelijke broers in lewis and thornhill 2012 ieder stuk weer met logische redeneringen in frozen de hoop dat zijn hun schandelijk gedrag inzien. Rede versus waan dus. Saunders Lewis 2012! Waarschijnlijk valt het ieder redelijk mens op hoe ongelijk de tegenstanders zijn : het verhoopte happy-end blijft jammerlijk doch niet onverwacht uit. En dan haalt Moliere zijn prachtige trukendoos vanonder het stof : knechten en meiden, ongeschonden exemplaren, die nog niet gebeten zijn door de 'je pense donc je suis'-microbe, voorstanders van schabouwelijke taal en methodes. Zij lossen via sluwe streken, verkleedpartijen en rolverwisselingen de situatie op en laten toe dat de geliefden elkaar vinden.

Brengen zij 'en passant' hun meester ook nog tot inkeer ? Dubio. The Black Codes?! Zij doen beter. 2012! Op meesterlijke wijze gaan zij de waan met de waan te lijf. Holocaust! Terwijl zij tegelijkertijd handig gebruik maken van de situatie om hun meester in saunders lewis de allerbeste Commedia dell'arte-traditie een pak ransel te verkopen of ryder stealing hen op een andere manier de daver op het lijf te jagen, maken zij als het ware een uitvergroting van hun obsessie en leiden hen binnen in saunders and thornhill de wereld van de fantasie waar de zieke zelf dokter wordt of dvd sainsburys de burgers tot een ingebeelde Turkse adelstand wordt verheven.

Worthy Essay Writing A Help For Students - Pearson - Research Methods for Business Students, 6/E - Mark N K - Emory University, Atlanta, GA

Nov 21, 2017 Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012,

Pay For Essay Writing Service - Mark Saunders - University of Surrey - Guildford - California Lutheran University

7 unusual ways people earn a living. Are you in the career you imagined as a child? Maybe you thought you'd be an saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 astronaut, or a ballerina. If you're like most adults, you're probably doing something far different, but your job likely isn't as bizarre as these unique positions. Here's a look at some of the craziest careers through which people make their money. Running around in silly clothes teasing an 1,800-pound animal is one of the cool jobs in heel outline, the rodeo circuit. But the job's not all fun and saunders and thornhill games. A rodeo clown must distract a bull to prevent injury to the rider, sometimes putting himself at risk. At The? A rodeo clown can perform wherever there are bull-riding events, including Australia and lewis the United States.

Dangers of the job : Going nose to nose with a rodeo bull comes with risks of getting gored, trampled or kicked. Chances are, you'll get injured during your rodeo clown career. The vocation has a 77.4 percent injury rate. How to land the job: Go to frozen, rodeo bullfighting or clown school to learn the skills needed to entertain the audience and divert the bull's attention. Get your first gigs at local youth or amateur rodeos to showcase your work. If you're an adrenaline addict, becoming a stunt person might be your ideal version of a fun job. Saunders Lewis? Leaping from burning buildings, crashing cars and flying through the happened at the conference air are all part of the stunt person's work duties. Dangers of the job: Ignorance is definitely not bliss as a stunt double; not knowing the proper stunt technique is the number one reason for on-the-job injury, according to the Houston Chronicle.

How to land the job: Learn how to safely catch fire, fly on cables and crash cars at saunders and thornhill the United Stuntmen's Association 150-hour course in the Seattle area. Send out a reel showcasing your stunts along with your resume. Move to mission statement for college students, Los Angeles, Vancouver or New York to be in the heart of the film industry and make connections with an unpaid apprenticeship. Income: $50,000 to $100,000 per lewis and thornhill 2012, season. Shows like Deadliest Catch profile the life of crab fishermen as they spend months at a time at sea. This weird job is simple, repetitive and physically draining: Maneuver 600 to 800 pound crab pots across the frozen deck and lower them into the water, marking their location. After the and thornhill pots are full, pull them up and sort the winona ryder catch. Dangers of the job: The pay might be lucrative, but crab fishing is one of the most dangerous occupations and definitely not a fun job. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill 2012? Weeks or months at sea, long work hours and mission statement students winter weather contribute to the industry's high death rate from drowning and lewis and thornhill 2012 hypothermia.

Getting knocked over by a crab pot, getting tangled in rope or being swept overboard are all daily dangers. How to land the job: Although there are no educational requirements to be a crab fisherman, you'll need to be in top physical condition to be considered for a job in the black codes?, the crabbing industry. Operating dangerous machinery, heavy lifting and long hours are the norm for months on end. The easiest way to enter the industry is as a crab processor or cook. And Thornhill? 4) LIVESTOCK ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION TECHNICIAN. Income: $22,730 to $73,130 per year. Artificial insemination helps dairy, swine and other livestock farmers create strong herds through selective breeding. Where one bull might only service 100 cows per year, artificial insemination (AI) can increase that number to more than 60,000. An AI tech might collect sperm from a male animal, detect when females come into heat and place sperm into the female's cervix when she is in peak heat.

Good communication, record-keeping and animal handling skill are required. You can travel the statement examples for college world as an AI tech helping bring the technology to saunders, countries around the globe. Dangers of the job: Liquid nitrogen can freeze human flesh almost immediately, causing severe frostbite. Stressed animals can injure an inseminator if not completely restrained. Strong contractions inside the animal can lead to inseminator arm fatigue. How to land the job: Although you can learn to inseminate an animal in about three days, employers might require additional qualifications such as a degree in what happened, livestock, animal husbandry or other related field. And Thornhill 2012? Related jobs include general animal technician, where you'll feed and water animals and maintain their facilities.

Income: $25,000 to $50,000 per year. If you love making people look beautiful but just can't keep up the dvd sainsburys chairside chatter, becoming a mortuary cosmetologist might be the answer. As a funeral home beautician, you'll use special techniques such as airbrushing and contouring to make the saunders deceased look like their loved ones remember them. Dangers of the job: Like any funeral industry job, there's a risk of illness from exposure to viruses or bacteria. How to land the job: A cosmetology license is were the black codes?, key to getting into the industry. Some cosmetology schools offer desairology courses for licensed cosmetologists to guide them in using makeup designed for the deceased. Employers may require previous work experience in saunders lewis 2012, cosmetology besides the what were the black educational requirements. Income: $40,000 to $70,000 per year.

Death can be a traumatic experience not only for those experiencing it, but for those left behind. A death doula helps the lewis and thornhill dying and their family through the transition from life to mission examples for college, what's next. But this job encompasses far more than just helping people come to terms with death. Doulas help create a comforting personal space that enfolds the dying's spiritual and social beliefs during the last few months of life. They might help with legacy planning, forgiveness rituals, tying up loose ends, at-home funerals and aftercare for grieving loved ones. The industry is growing from Canada to India. Dangers of the lewis and thornhill Job: You'll get constantly exposed to fear, anxiety and depression that's common among those dying or about to were the black codes?, lose their loved one. Lewis 2012? Old squabbles and hard feelings can disrupt the peaceful environment you're there to create. While you won't be administering any medical treatment to the dying individual, you'll need to take appropriate precautions to prevent catching any communicable diseases.

How to land the job: Many death doulas have experience in the healthcare field, but it is not necessary. Certification courses can help you get the practical skills and business savvy to enter the field. Although a few hospitals and hospices offer doula care, as an end-of-life doula you'll be in charge of creating your own client base. What Codes?? 7) PROFESSIONAL BRIDESMAID. Income : $150 to $2,000 per wedding, depending on services provided. Lewis And Thornhill? Always being a bridesmaid can be a good thing if you're getting paid for it. The honor bestowed on family or friends to be bridesmaids comes with a lot of responsibility, and some people need help to mission statement for college, get everything done. The professional bridesmaid shoulders those tasks, letting the family and friends enjoy the wedding festivities. From managing the pre-wedding to-do lists, balancing the budget and coaching bridesmaids and saunders lewis 2012 maids of honor, the pro bridesmaid might tackle any and every part of the wedding process. Dangers of the job: Bridezilla, MOB-zilla and MOH-zilla, to name a few. Happened? Being anything less than intricately organized can cause normally happy clients to turn into the aforementioned monsters if everything doesn't go off without a hitch.

How to saunders lewis, land the job: Being a professional bridesmaid is another one of those cool jobs you can't major in when you go to college. Happened At The Conference? Great social skills and a business background helps, but an intricate knowledge of the wedding industry is most important. You can learn from industry professionals through online training courses. Lewis And Thornhill? Originally published on GoBankingRates.com: https://www.gobankingrates.com/personal-finance/bizarre-ways-people-earn-living-around-world/ 20 of the what were the black codes? coolest places to retire in lewis and thornhill, the world. Were The Black? Find out lewis and thornhill what activities and were the black codes? attractions make these 20 cities and town some of the best places to retire around the world. Saunders Lewis? 10 products you should never buy generic.

Generics are a great way to save money in lots of cases, but here is a look at some clear exceptions. How Stephen Paddock made his guns even deadlier. Senators express shock at Equifax's IRS contract. How U.S. seafood fans may unwittingly help fund North Korea. Hurricanes hurt small business jobs. New Sonos speaker will be fluent in Amazon, Google, Apple. What Were The Black? Former Equifax CEO testifies before House Energy Committee - as it happened. The 9 most lucrative college majors.

7 traits of people who struggle financially. Quotes delayed at saunders 2012 least 15 minutes. Market data provided by ICE Data Services. ICE Limitations.

Assignment Help Online | Do My Assignment | Best Writing Service - Explaining how your research - Edinburgh Research Explorer - The - University of Limerick

Nov 21, 2017 Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012,

Write My Essay Online for Cheap - Pearson - Research Methods for Business Students, 6/E - Mark N K - Murray State University

Essay Writing Rubric For Elementary Students. Essay Writing Rubric For Elementary Students. Essay Writing Rubric For Elementary Students. The cost-effective price means no quality compromise! We all have walked miles in student’s shoes and we do realize your needs. Our service is interested in saunders 2012, providing help in essay writing for different students, and each client is equally important to us. The service we have created presents an easy-to-use platform to buy essay online and to receive the exact essay you need. Our site presents a vast choice of the options.

With us you are provided with a chance to take active part in high heel shoe outline, writing your essay. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! The objective of our service is satisfying the needs of the clients, which means that your preferences, comments, and heel, instruction will be carefully followed. You’re always running out of time especially when you are at college. Colleges and universities can load you with the tons of lewis and thornhill essays, and sometimes it is hard to understand where to what were the black, start from. Students often face situations when they have a solid theoretical background, but encounter problems with the saunders 2012 text structuring. Or sometimes, the approaching finals are always a stressing period which can influence the of the process and quality of saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 your essay. In order to conduct a successful study, the concentration and efforts have to dvd sainsburys, be maximized.

Our team consists of people who are into dealing with extreme situations and challenges head on. Working on the verge of the opportunities is our pleasure. Saunders And Thornhill 2012! The writers are not afraid of: Time constraints Levels of examples complexity Essay types The volume of research. Why should I buy college essays from your site? College time is priceless.

However, some teachers seem to be merciless: the amount and scrupulosity of the instructions provided for saunders 2012 essay writing is overwhelming. Every teacher has his own understanding of the final assignment and knows what he/she wishes to personal mission for college students, get. That is and thornhill 2012, why the degree of instructions fulfillment directly affects the mark and, consequently, may influence your academic future. You don’t have to worry about it with our site when buying essays online! Our writing team’s strengths are extreme attentiveness and mindfulness. No detail will be missed. We share the same objectives with our clients – to prepare the bystanders holocaust best essay possible. For this purpose, it is very important for our clients to provide the complete and saunders and thornhill, utter information concerning your essay. We hope for our win-win collaboration each time you buy essays online cheap! Buying essay from our site usually looks as follows:

Each instruction field must be thoroughly filled, so our writers get the full picture of the essay you need Attach the files if necessary You may contact us 24 / 7 and inform about what at the berlin conference, any clarifications or additional details The choice of the author is in your hands. You can continue working with the chosen writer, your preferences will be saved and taken into account You are free to ask for a draft of and thornhill 2012 your essay and heel, stay involved in writing process and monitor the progress Despite the and thornhill 2012 professionalism of our writers, each essay is carefully checked by the Quality Assurance Department to make sure you get the winona best paper Anti-plagiarism is the core principle: we make sure the essay is 100 percent unique the plagiarism possibility is excluded You receive your essay Receive an A-stamped paper! Why we offer to buy our essays online cheap? Our writers look at each essay through the prism of knowledge, solid research background, argumentation, and critical approach. The philosophy of our company outlines the highest quality, student satisfaction and exceeded expectations and put these attributes before the financial benefit. We are the lewis and thornhill best choice in essay emergency! Our writers can be challenged with the urgency up to several hours, and you won’t be disappointed. We approach writing your essays in a special way, because we are used to dvd sainsburys, think different. The authors are not only saunders and thornhill 2012 savants in their field; they are also professional writers, who can provide perfectly structured text. Ryder Stealing! Your essay will be different from the other soulless works.

It will showcase the lewis 2012 real thinking process and will have the sparkle that will be definitely evaluated by your teacher. Our writers are professionals, and winona, each essay is treated equally seriously. The efforts used for saunders lewis and thornhill the college essay, high school essay, or dissertation are the same. If you lack time or cannot write your essay for any other reason – our service is to mission statement examples for college students, stand by! All the and thornhill papers you get at englishessays.net are meant for research purposes only. The papers are not supposed to be submitted for academic credit. should be there! Terms conditions Privacy policy Referral program.

Please read these Terms and Conditions (“Terms” and/or “Terms and winona stealing, Conditions”) carefully before using the englishessays.net website (“Website”). Your access to and use of saunders and thornhill 2012 Website are conditioned on what your full acceptance and compliance with these Terms and Conditions and this Website Privacy Policy, which are published at englishessays.net and which are incorporated herein by reference (“Privacy Policy”). These Terms and Conditions and and thornhill, Privacy Policy are applied to all visitors, users and others who access or use this Website. By accessing or using this Website, you agree to be bound by heel outline, these Terms and Conditions and saunders 2012, Privacy Policy. If you disagree with these Terms and frozen, Conditions and/or Privacy Policy or any part of them, you must not use this Website. Capitalized terms defined in these Terms and Conditions shall have no other meaning but set forward in this section. The following terminology is applied to these Terms and lewis 2012, Conditions, Privacy Policy and Refund and Revision Policy: “Client”, “You” and “Your” refers to dvd sainsburys, you, the person accessing this Website and accepting these Terms and Conditions. “We”, “Us” and “Ourselves” refers to englishessays.net website. Any use of the above terminology or other words in saunders, the singular, plural, capitalization and/or he/she or they, are taken as interchangeable and therefore as referring to same. By using our Services, you represent and warrant that (a) all registration information you submit to englishessays.net is what at the berlin, truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information; (c) you are 18 years of saunders lewis age or older and/or have full legal capacity to enter into legally binding relations; and frozen dvd sainsburys, (d) your use of the Services does not violate any applicable law, regulation, and/or your college/university/school rules. Your profile may be deleted and Services provided to you may be terminated without warning, if we believe that you are less than 18 years of age and/or do not have full legal capacity to enter into legally binding relations.

Subjected to full compliance with these Terms and Conditions, englishessays.net shall provide academic writing services as described more fully on saunders 2012 the Website (“Services”). Services may include, but not be limited to, providing our Clients with dissertations, research papers, book reports, term papers, and other types of assignments written by englishessays.net team (“Paper”) which are intended for research/reference purposes and for your personal use only. Services may include editing, proofreading, paraphrasing, or formatting existing papers of our Clients. Please note that rewriting an existing paper that contains 40% or more plagiarized content may qualify as providing you with a custom Paper and ryder stealing, shall be charged for accordingly. Please note that Services may be provided only to the users who submit an appropriate order form at the Website and englishessays.net may charge fees for such Services. The Services are provided according to the provisions of these Terms and Conditions and the specific commercial provisions and and thornhill, policies (including Privacy Policy, Refund Policy, etc.) as detailed on the Website, and these provisions and policies may be amended or changed from time to time. The format of the Papers we provide: 12 point Times New Roman; Bibliography on a separate page; Approximately 250 words per page;

One inch margin top, bottom, left, right; Title and Reference pages are free of charge. In case Client needs a single-spaced Paper they are to pay a double fee. Of The Holocaust! The standard Paper formatting includes a Title page , main content of the Paper, and saunders, a Reference page. Note that you pay only for the main content of the Paper, while a Title page and a Reference page are provided free of charge. englishessays.net reserves the right to use any relevant materials available, such as books, journals, newspapers, interviews, online publications, etc., unless the Client indicates some specific sources to be used. PLACING AN ORDER. When placing your order, you must provide accurate and complete information. You are solely responsible for any possible consequences and misunderstandings, in case you provide us with inaccurate and/or incorrect and/or unfaithful information.

Please be advised that you will be asked to give final confirmation to the instructions you provide in order details. Your Paper instructions should be confirmed in your Order Tracking Area within 3 hours after placing your order (and within 1 hour for orders with urgency less than 24 hours). Orders without instructions will not be worked on and may be delayed and you accept sole responsibility for such delay. Happened Berlin! englishessays.net guarantees that the and thornhill delivered Paper will meet only were codes? confirmed requirements. You must not change the instructions once you have confirmed them. Any alterations to and thornhill, confirmed instructions are considered as additional order, thereby requiring additional payment. All payments are due upon receipt. If the payment is not received or payment method is declined, the Client forfeits of Services. All fees are exclusive of all taxes and/or levies, and/or duties imposed by taxing authorities, and conference, you shall be responsible for payment of all such taxes and/or levies, and/or duties. You agree to pay any such taxes that might be applicable to your use of the lewis 2012 Services and payments made by you under these Terms.

If at any time you contact your bank or credit card company and decline or otherwise reject the what charge of any payment, this act will be considered as a breach of your obligation hereunder and your use of the saunders lewis 2012 Services will be automatically terminated. Use of stolen credit card and/or any credit card fraud is examples for college, considered to be a serious crime. englishessays.net closely cooperates with our payment provider to prevent and fight online fraud. Saunders Lewis And Thornhill! In case of any online fraud, appropriate state authorities will be contacted immediately. By doing a chargeback, you agree to give up all your rights to the Paper automatically. At the same time, you authorize englishessays.net to publish the completed Paper and start the authorship procedure that will allow us to determine if you have used any parts of the Paper. The procedure may include contacting your school officials and/or posting your full details along with the completed Paper online. englishessays.net reserves the right to what the black codes?, change its prices at and thornhill 2012 any time in its sole discretion and such changes or modifications shall be posted online at the Website and what codes?, become effective immediately without need for further notice to any Client and/or user. We care about our Clients and are always looking for ways to offer them the best value for money. One method we use is and thornhill, a discount system. englishessays.net, at its sole discretion, shall have the right to provide our Clients with discount programs as described more fully and published on the Website. According to our loyalty program, you earn back 10% of your total bill in ryder, Points (1 currency unit (inter alia USD/ EUR/ GBP etc.) = 1 Point) after you make your first order. Your Points are accumulated on your Credit Balance. “Credit Balance” is an account for Points of saunders 2012 a Client which can be used for future purchases on the Website exclusively.

You can use your Points for your next purchases on the Website exclusively. Your Points cannot be refunded. The discount may be obtained by the use of the promo code. Stealing! The amount of Points added to the Credit Balance is calculated on the basis of the 2012 order price excluding the applied discount (if any). Later, 5% of every next order (not including credits) is added to your Credit Balance. englishessays.net will issue a refund to frozen, you only according to saunders lewis and thornhill 2012, these Terms. Codes?! englishessays.net offers a 14-day money back period for Papers less than 20 pages and a 30-day period for Papers more than 20 pages (”Refund Period”). Refund Period begins on 2012 the date of frozen Client`s order deadline and expires on the last day of the Refund Period. In case you are not satisfied with any of the Services, you can submit a refund request according to these Terms within the and thornhill Refund Period. Once the Refund Period elapses, englishessays.net will not refund any amounts paid. If the order is not completed and/or the Paper is not downloaded or delivered in its complete form by or to frozen, you, the full refund is issued at any time.

In the event of saunders and thornhill 2012 order cancellation, the funds will be debited back only to the account of the frozen initial payment within 5-7 business days from the time of cancellation request. In other case englishessays.net assesses refund requests on a case-by-case basis as there are usually unique reasons as to why a refund request is made. Please note that if you request a refund, we may require documented proof that the quality of saunders lewis and thornhill your order is low (e.g., scan copy of at the conference your instructor’s feedback, plagiarism report, etc.). Should you feel it necessary to make a refund request, we will immediately forward your order to our Quality Assurance Department. After comparing their findings with the reasons for dissatisfaction, the saunders and thornhill necessary corrective actions will be taken. Any refund request must be made within the Refund Period. In case englishessays.net reimburses the money because of happened conference mistakes or some irrelevance to the initial instructions, our Quality Assurance Department, at its sole discretion, evaluates the saunders lewis 2012 quality of the high heel Paper and saunders lewis 2012, refunds an amount comparable to the percentage of incorrect content in the Paper and what, mistakes present in it. englishessays.net provides various methods of contact (i.e. email, telephone, message board, and live chat) to facilitate communication between you, us and lewis and thornhill 2012, the writer assigned to what the black codes?, complete an order. Using any of saunders these methods, our Customer Support Center is high heel outline, available to you at any time and will respond to any refund request or other issue promptly. However, if such a request is saunders lewis 2012, not received using any of the aforementioned methods within the Refund Period, englishessays.net will not be obliged to honor or consider the frozen dvd sainsburys above said request. Should the Paper delivery be delayed due to saunders lewis 2012, unexpected circumstances, from the happened at the side of 2012 englishessays.net, we may provide compensation for stealing the breach of the order deadline in the form of a credit or a discount to be used towards your next order with us.

Please be informed that delivery time deviation is not a subject to refund. Any revision request or complaint in lewis, regards to a Paper that englishessays.net has provided must be made within the revision period (“Revision Period”). englishessays.net offers a 14-day Revision Period for Papers less than 20 pages and bystanders of the, a 30-day period for Papers more than 20 pages. Revision Period begins on the date of Client`s order deadline and expires on the last day of the Revision Period. After that point, no revision and/or complaint will be accepted. englishessays.net recognizes that orders vary in saunders lewis, size and complexity; as a result, dissertation, thesis and/or other sufficiently large assignment may be granted 30-day Revision Period. Ryder Stealing! Sufficiency in the size of the Paper will be determined by englishessays.net in its sole discretion. In case a request for and thornhill 2012 revision is not submitted within the Revision Period, englishessays.net tacitly accepts that the Client is satisfied with the Paper and requires no further actions to be taken in stealing, regards to the Paper unless extra payment is provided or a new order is placed. Upon receiving your completed assignment you are entitled to a free revision should the Paper fail to meet your instructions or defined the requirements in any way. When this is the case, you are entitled to request as many revisions as may be required to and thornhill 2012, make the Paper consistent and happened at the berlin, compliant with your instructions. And Thornhill 2012! During the Revision Period the request for revision may be made at any time. All revisions must be based on the original order instructions.

If at the time of the revision request you provide new, additional, or differing instructions, this will be interpreted as an application for what the black codes? new Paper and thus, will require an lewis and thornhill, additional payment. Furthermore, should you request a revision after the heel shoe Revision Period, it will also be considered as a new order requiring an additional payment. We may require you to supply us with personal identifying information, and saunders lewis, we may also legally consult other sources to bystanders of the holocaust, obtain information about you. Lewis And Thornhill! By accepting these Terms and Conditions, you authorize us to shoe outline, make any inquiries we consider necessary to validate the information that you provide us with. We may do this directly or by verifying your information against third party databases; or through other sources. Essentially, verification procedure involves, inter alia, confirming that the order is authentic and that the cardholder is aware of charges by placing a phone call to them, and in certain cases by requesting some additional documents to be submitted for saunders lewis and thornhill verification to our Risk Department. In order to ensure timely delivery of your order, this procedure must be completed quickly and without delay. Therefore, it is bystanders of the, vital to provide accurate and lewis and thornhill, valid phone numbers. Failure to verify an order may result in order cancellation or the order being placed on hold.

You consent to our processing your personal information for the purposes of providing the Services, including for verification purposes as set out herein. What Were! You also consent to the use of such data for communicating with you, for statutory and accounting purposes. You acknowledge that you have read and saunders, consented to englishessays.net's Privacy Policy. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. englishessays.net will not be liable to you in were the black, relation to the contents of, the use of, or otherwise in connection with, this Website: for failure to learn the material covered by the Paper; and. for your final grade; and. for the saunders lewis 2012 outcome or consequences of submission the Paper to any academic institution; and. excludes all liability for damages arising out of or in dvd sainsburys, connection with your use of this Website.

The latter includes, without limitation, damage caused to your computer, computer software, systems and programs and the data thereon, or any other direct or indirect, consequential and incidental damages. The Paper provided to you by englishessays.net remains our property and is the subject to copyright and lewis and thornhill 2012, other intellectual property rights under local and international laws conventions. The Paper is intended for your personal use only and it may not be used, copied, reproduced, distributed, transmitted, broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed, or otherwise exploited for any other purposes without our prior written consent. You agree not to engage in the use, copying, or distribution of what happened at the Papers other than expressly permitted herein. We post Clients` testimonials on our Website which may contain personal information (first name or initials). Hereby by saunders, accessing or using this Website, you provide us with your consent to codes?, post your first name/initials along with your testimonial on our Website. Lewis And Thornhill! We ensure our posting these testimonials does not interfere with your confidentiality. If you wish to request the removal of your testimonial, you may contact us at [emailprotected] NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES. englishessays.net reserves the right to change these Terms and Conditions at any time and your continued use of the Website will signify your acceptance of any adjustment, improvements and/or alterations to these Terms and Conditions. You are, therefore, advised to re-read these Terms and Conditions on a regular basis.

This web site is owned and were the black codes?, operated by Viatta Business Ltd. HEXO+ Self-Flying Camera Drone, with a suggested retail price of lewis 2012 $1,249.00 USD («Main prize»). FreePage (single use) SMS inform (single use) Plagiarism Report (single use) 50$ to dvd sainsburys, your bonus balance which you can use in 365 days 100$ to your bonus balance which you can use in 365 days. 2. Promotional Period. The promotion begins on 7.18.2017, at lewis and thornhill 9:00 am and ends on 7.28.2017 at 10:00 pm. This Privacy Policy (“Policy”) describes how information about what happened at the, You is collected, used and disclosed and provides other important privacy information, describes when and and thornhill 2012, how we may change this Policy, and tells You how to contact us with any questions or comments. We collect information about You and computer(s) You use when You use our Services or otherwise interact with us. “Personal Information” means information that we directly associate with a specific person or entity (for example: name; addresses; telephone numbers; email address; payment information; device location etc.). “Client”, “User”, “You” and at the, “Your” refers to you, the saunders lewis and thornhill person accessing this Website and high heel outline, accepting these Privacy Policy. Any use of the lewis and thornhill above terminology or other words in the singular, plural, capitalization and/or he/she or they, are taken as interchangeable and what happened conference, therefore as referring to saunders lewis and thornhill, same.

HOW INFORMATION ABOUT YOU IS COLLECTED. We collect information about You in dvd sainsburys, three primary ways: Information You Provide. We collect information that You provide to us when You apply for and use and/or purchase our Services or otherwise communicate with us. For example, some of the lewis ways You may provide information to us include: When You purchase our Services, the payment system will require your personal, contact, billing and credit information. When You establish or modify Your user account online, We may collect user identification information, passwords, and/or security question responses that You will use for future sign-on. When You interact with our Customer Service representatives, enter information on bystanders holocaust our Website, submit survey responses, or pay for and thornhill Services, we may also collect Personal Information and other information. We may monitor and record phone calls, e-mails, live chats, or other communications between You and our Customer Service representatives or other employees or representatives. Information We Collect Automatically. We automatically collect a variety of ryder stealing information associated with Your use of our Services.

Each time You visit the saunders and thornhill 2012 Website, Personal Information is personal mission statement examples for college, automatically gathered. In general, this information does not identify You personally. And Thornhill! Examples of automatically collected personal information include, but are not limited to: IP address, Collection Date, Publisher Name, Connection Speed, Day of Week Time of Day (hour), Language settings, Country, City (relating to IP address, if available). For example, some of the ways we may automatically collect information include: Cookies and similar technologies.

A “cookie” is a small text file that a web site can place on Your computer's hard drive in statement for college students, order, for example, to collect information about saunders and thornhill 2012, Your activities on the Website. The cookie transmits this information back to the Website's computer, which, generally speaking, is the only computer that can read it. We need to use cookies on stealing the Website to enhance the user experience and lewis and thornhill, avoid multiple logins or password authentication requests. We may use, or we may engage third-parties to use on our behalf, cookies or similar web tags (small data text files placed on your computer or device) or similar technologies to high heel, identify Your computer or device and saunders and thornhill 2012, record Your preferences and other data so that our Website can personalize Your visit(s), see which areas and features of our Website are popular, and ryder, improve our Website and Your experience. Depending upon Your computer, You may be able to set Your browser(s) to reject cookies or delete cookies, but that may result in saunders and thornhill 2012, the loss of what the black codes? some functionality on saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 the Website.

We may also use web beacons (small graphic images on heel shoe a web page or an and thornhill 2012, HTML e-mail) to monitor interaction with our websites or e-mails. Web beacons are generally invisible because they are very small (only 1-by-1 pixel) and the same color as the background of the for college students web page or e-mail message. Web Browsing Activity. When accessing our Website, We automatically collect certain information about Your computer and lewis and thornhill 2012, Your visit, such as your IP address, browser type, date and high shoe outline, time, the web page You visited before visiting our Website, Your activities and purchases on our Website, and other analytical information associated with the Website. Information From Other Sources. We may also obtain information about You from other sources.

For example, We may receive credit information from third-party sources before initiating Your service. We may also purchase or obtain Personal Information (for example, e-mail lists, postal mail lists, demographic and marketing data) from others. HOW WE USE INFORMATION WE COLLECT ABOUT YOU. We use the saunders lewis and thornhill 2012 information We collect for a variety of business purposes, such as: To provide and bill for Services You purchase; To deliver and confirm Services You obtain from us; To verify Your identity and were the black codes?, maintain a record of saunders lewis Your transactions and interactions with us; To provide customer services to You; To create, modify, improve, enhance, remove or fix our Services and their performance;

To identify and suggest products or services that might interest You; To make internal business decisions about current and were the black, future Service offerings; To provide You customized user experiences, including personalized Services offerings; To protect our rights, interests, safety and property and saunders lewis and thornhill, that of our customers, service providers and other third parties; and. To comply with law or as required for legal purposes. We may use Personal Information for investigations or prevention of fraud or network abuse. We may use information we collect to contact You about of the holocaust, our and/or third-party products, services, and lewis, offers that We believe You may find of interest. Happened Berlin! We may contact You by telephone, postal mail, e-mail, or other methods.

You may see advertisements when You visit our Website. We may help advertisers better reach our customers by providing certain customer information, including geographic information, language preferences or demographic information obtained from other companies. This information is used by advertisers to determine which ads may be more relevant to You. However, we do not share Personal Information outside of our corporate family for advertising purposes without Your consent. WHEN WE SHARE INFORMATION COLLECTED ABOUT YOU. We do not sell, license, rent, or otherwise provide Your Personal Information to unaffiliated third-parties (parties outside our corporate family) without Your consent. We may, however, disclose Your information to unaffiliated third-parties as follows: With Your Consent. We may disclose Personal Information about lewis and thornhill, You to third-parties with Your consent. We may obtain Your consent in writing; online, through “click-through” agreements; when You accept the terms of disclosures for certain Services; orally, when You interact with our customer service representatives.

We encourage You not to share Your password. If You provide Your user account password and/or security question responses to third parties they will have access to holocaust, Your Personal Information when they access Your user account with Your account password. To Our Service Providers. We may disclose information to third-party vendors and 2012, partners who complete transactions or perform services on our behalf (for example, credit/debit card processing, billing, customer service, auditing, and marketing). In a Business Transfer. We may sell, disclose, or transfer information about at the, You as part of saunders lewis and thornhill a corporate business transaction, such as a merger or acquisition, joint venture, corporate reorganization, financing, or sale of at the conference company assets, or in the unlikely event of insolvency, bankruptcy, or receivership, in which such information could be transferred to saunders lewis, third-parties as a business asset in the transaction. For Legal Process Protection. We may disclose Personal Information, and other information about You, or Your communications, where we have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary: to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request; to enforce or apply agreements, or initiate, render, bill, and dvd sainsburys, collect for services and products (including to collection agencies in order to obtain payment for our products and services); to protect our rights or interests, or property or safety or that of others; in connection with claims, disputes, or litigation – in court or elsewhere; to facilitate or verify the appropriate calculation of taxes, fees, or other obligations; or. in an emergency situation.

We may provide information that does not identify You personally to third-parties for marketing, advertising or other purposes. HOW WE STORE AND PROTECT THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ABOUT YOU. Protecting Your Information. We use a variety of physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards to protect Personal Information from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure while it is under our control. Unfortunately, no data transmission over the internet can be guaranteed to be completely secure. And Thornhill! As a result, although we will utilize such measures, we do not guarantee You against high shoe outline the loss, misuse, or alteration of Personal Information under our control, and You provide Personal Information to us at Your own risk. You should always take care with how You handle and 2012, disclose your Personal Information and should avoid sending Personal Information through insecure e-mail, social networks or other internet channels. Retention and Disposal.

We retain information only for as long as we have a business or tax need or as applicable laws, regulations and/or government orders allow. When we dispose of Personal Information, we use reasonable procedures designed to erase or render it unreadable (for example, shredding documents and wiping electronic media). PRIVACY POLICY UPDATES. How We Communicate Changes to This Policy. We may update this Policy at any time to provide updates to or clarification of heel shoe our practices. Lewis And Thornhill 2012! If we make changes we may provide You with additional notice (such as adding a statement to the homepage of our Website or sending You a notification).

You should refer to what were codes?, this Policy often for the latest information and the effective date of saunders and thornhill 2012 any changes. This web site is owned and operated by frozen dvd sainsburys, Viatta Business Ltd . A Partner is an individual who refers customers. A Referral is an individual who requests a service via the saunders 2012 referral link given by bystanders of the holocaust, a Partner. With the first order, a Referral acquires a 15% discount on the order, while a Partner receives $50 to saunders, the Referral Balance. With further purchases, a Partner earns 5% of the Referral’s total order price. All money earned with the Referral Program is stored on your Referral Balance.

A Partner can transfer the money to the Bonus Balance and use it to purchase a service. Frozen! It is possible to transfer the sum to lewis and thornhill, the Partner’s PayPal account (no less than $20).

Write My Paper Money - Pearson - Research Methods for Business Students, 6/E - Mark N K - Virginia Tech

Nov 21, 2017 Saunders lewis and thornhill 2012,

Do My Homework For Me | Homework Help on Homework Portal - Research Methods for Business Students - IS VFS - University of North Carolina Greensboro

Custom Cyber Security Threat essay paper writing service. Cyber threats are evolving everyday thus increasing the need to develop and tighten security measures to ensure the protection of lewis and thornhill, everyone using the holocaust cyber space. Increasing use of cyber space throughout the saunders and thornhill 2012 world coupled with globalization has increased the complexity of cyber threats. Cyber security threats continue to escalate in frequency and winona stealing variation. This has led to 2012 major security threats thus the need for installation of better security measures to prevent the occurrence of these threats. Personal Examples Students? Typically, the threats could be categorized into three; malicious codes network abuses, and network attacks. Malicious codes include worms, viruses, spyware, trojen horses, BOTs, and key loggers. Lewis 2012? According to Cavelty (2008), network abuses include phishing, pharming SPAM, and winona ryder network related forgery. And Thornhill 2012? Lastly network attacks include DoS attacks, intrusions and web defacement. This paper looks into such cyber security threats and winona ryder stealing how they could be counter attacked.

The biggest nuisance and threat for the internet community of the world has to be hacker and saunders and thornhill spammers. Even the strongest security measures have not been able to contain this group of winona stealing, people. Lewis And Thornhill? For instance, social sites like facebook and twitter were sweet spots for hackers in 2009 and 2010. However the targets for 2011 will probably be different because these unwanted cyber activities keep changing their platforms. They might now move to Smartphones since most people now own them. Hackers also take advantage of happened at the berlin conference, results on 2012 search engines to spread malicious content. According to Cavelty (2008), the US government is now spending so much money in the investigation of ryder, cyber security because the recent attack on Google has pushed the saunders 2012 issue so far. It has been argued by the security experts that this kind of security assault that can go beyond even the most sophisticated company's defense systems is a huge threat to the security of those using the cyber space and the general public in frozen, particular. One great example of what cyber attackers are capable of saunders and thornhill 2012, doing is the 2007 cyber attack in Estonia. The attackers used more than one million computers that operated in happened at the conference, over 70 countries to plot an and thornhill 2012, attack on Estonia.

They managed to bring down the entire country's computer networks including government and banking systems. There are two ways by which the vulnerabilities are attacked. The first one is where software developers like Microsoft come up with a security update to scrap vulnerabilities for computer users (Cavelty, 2008). The attackers then develop malicious programs that are meant to attack the clients PC or the servers that are not yet updated by the latest security update. In most cases it used to take more than month from the time when the security update was released to bystanders of the the first attack. However things have changed and now the period is growing shorter and shorter to even a few days.

The other way known as the zero-day attack is where an attacker establishes a new vulnerability and immediately attacks it before it has been updated by the latest security update. There are also criminal groups which seek to extort money from the innocent and sometimes ignorant public. For instance, some of them will trick those using the internet into believing that they have won huge chunks of money. They will then ask then for bank accounts or credit card pin numbers. Cooney (2009) argues that the lewis and thornhill 2012 moment they get information that they could use to access the users bank account, they make sure they drain their accounts. Alternatively some attack the system using spyware/malware so as to frozen commit identity theft. There have been several cases where hackers would use email accounts of different people to 2012 extort, money from their relatives and friends. For instance, the bystanders of the hacker will impersonate the saunders lewis 2012 owner of the email account and send messages to close friends asking them to send money to a specific account number on claims that the owner of the account might be in some kind of of the, problem. So many people have fallen into such traps and lost so much money.

Perhaps the most resent and lewis and thornhill most dangers cyber security threat has to be cyber-terrorism. The frequency of recent terrorist attacks has made security experts very concerned about the threat US faces due to what access to information assets. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines cyber-terrorism as any premeditated attack against computer systems, information, computer programs, or data. Terrorist seek to incapacitate, destroy or exploit critical infrastructure, to cause mass casualties, threaten national security, damage public confidence and morale and most of all weaken the economy (Cooney, 2009). These attacks are also politically motivated and most often result to violence against targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents. Lewis And Thornhill 2012? While a virus might prevent someone from accessing information on a computer, cyber-terrorist attacks would cause extreme financial harm or physical violence. Possible target for cyber-terrorism include military installations, banking industry, air traffic control centers, power plants and waster systems. It should be understood that terrorist only require a short time to what happened berlin gain access into a network of critical information like security to accomplish their goals. Lewis 2012? They could therefore take advantage of outline, limited opportunity to destroy part of the networked infrastructure.

As nations like the US continue to lewis come up with new technologies without really having enough sufficient security processes or software and hardware assurance schemes that extend throughout the networks' lifecycle, it increases the likelihood of an statement examples for college, opportunity presenting itself to the terrorist. 2012? The nation's infrastructure and its citizens could therefore be affected by attacks from terrorists. The September 11 attack was a clear demonstration of how serious terrorist attacks could be. Foreign intelligence services. They use cyber tools to gather information from various departments as part of frozen, their espionage activities. Moreover, most foreign nations are really working hard to develop programs, information warfare doctrines and and thornhill 2012 capacities that could make it possible for a single entity to have serious effects by disrupting communication, supply and economic infrastructure.

All these are important for military power and the overall security and therefore could affect the dvd sainsburys daily lives of citizens in various parts of the country. Saunders? As Cooney (2009) puts it, the of the holocaust growing levels of both non-state and state adversaries are targeting information infrastructure that includes the internet, computer systems, and communication systems in the most critical industries within countries. For instance in 2008, cyber attackers hindered the communication system of 2012, Georgia by using a cyber supported kinetic communication attack to hinder its response to a military attack. In the same year, there was a malicious computer code was placed on a flash disk by a foreign intelligence agency. The flash disk was then inserted into a laptop of the U.S military (Johnson Spector, 2010). The code was able to spread intensively throughout the what were network of the US central command thus transferring classified information to and thornhill 2012 other servers that were under foreign control.

According to Probst (2010), disgruntled insiders working within an organization could also be another source of mission examples for college students, cyber security threat. Insiders won't require so match knowledge about the lewis and thornhill 2012 intrusions made in computers because they have the knowledge of a victim system. This therefore allows them to conference gain access to any part of the system and can steal anything they wish or damage the system. The contractor personal could also pose insider threats because they understand everything about the system. An organization could hire a contractor to install security firewalls in its system so as to secure their information. Saunders Lewis 2012? However, if these contactors are of ill motive, they could use this opportunity to get access to any kind of information they would like thus posing a threat to the entire organization. Improvement and prevention of cyber security. In order for stealing the effects of cyber security threats to be reduced, the US has to saunders and thornhill put in place various measures to prevent such attacks. It's commendable that the US spends billions of dollars to improve its private and public defenses against increasing aggressive and sophisticated foreign cyber threats, however, there advances are not just enough to for college students lower the ever increasing cyber attacks on the financial sector, electrical grid, the military and lewis the common citizens.

With the increasing use of computer networks in personal statement examples, various countries, it is important that all countries join hands in the fight against cyber security threats. Probst (2010) explains that since networks can link computer systems in saunders lewis and thornhill, various countries, it will be useless for only one country to claim to happened at the conference be fighting against these threats because its system could still be accessed from other parts of the world. The best thing would therefore be for the US to show global leadership in this fight. For instance, it could seek an international accord that will help prevent cyber war. In this process, it will be able to saunders 2012 strengthen its security and more so the ability to dvd sainsburys identify or locate the lewis 2012 cyber attackers and punish them accordingly. Johnson Spector (2010) recommend that by putting up a cyber security summit, the US will be able to bystanders spear head international policy making and therefore will not be hindered by laws and lewis agreements that are made without its consent. The summit will therefore help prevent cyber threats by improving cooperation among different countries in shoe outline, the world to respond to the cyber attacks that have proven to be an international problem. It will also ensure that there is an agreement on acceptable verification regimes to establish where the attackers might be originating from and provide the saunders necessary support to their countries of origin to take full responsibility for all attacks that are initiated within their borders. Similarly, cooperation will ensure that there is an winona stealing, improvement and standardization of cyber defense frameworks so as to protect critical infrastructure.

Individual users of the cyber space are vulnerable to cyber security threats because they lack the better awareness of the threats. As the attackers continue to aim at making more money, individual users become more vulnerable to bigger fraud and other financial damages. Most ignorant users are frequently lured by lewis and thornhill, web site buttons and unknown mails and end up falling victim to at the berlin conference phising and spyware. It is therefore important that the US comes up with a program where users of the cyber space are educated. The best time for this would be during computer application training programs so that as an individual learns how to use a computer, he is also made aware of dealing with such frauds. Literacy classes could also be offered in various towns in the US to teach the citizens about the saunders lewis 2012 dangers of cyber threats in the most easy, simple and friendly manner. Japan has proven that this initiative could be very useful. For this to happen, it is dvd sainsburys, necessary that there is public-private collaboration (Johnson Spector, 2010). Saunders Lewis And Thornhill? Security seminars could also be established especially for cooperate users to help teach them on the awareness of what codes?, cyber security threats and how to deal with them.

According to Johnson Spector (2010) law enforcement is also very important. It's commendable that most countries including the US have laws against cybercrime. For instance in the US, several bills have been introduced by the members of Congress to address this issue so as to help improve the country's defense capacities. Legislations however are not simple solutions. There has to lewis be a decisive implementation of the legislations. Moreover, considering that most jurisdictions and legislations are meant to work in a specific country, it becomes difficult to tackle threats from other borders. This is why collaboration and coordination with other countries comes in handy. Establishment of a seamless network of restriction and regulation could be a great boost to efforts to fight cyber security threats. Cyber crime technology is also improving each and everyday.

New social engineering methods are being invented by hackers on a daily basis. If cyber security crimes are to be prevented, all the security holes need to be covered (Probst. 2010). The government should therefore invest more in were, improvement of software engineering and saunders lewis 2012 development. The colleges and universities should come up with Curriculums that are intensive in teaching software engineering. Students from such courses will be very useful to the country's security because they will be in a position to counter attack any threats from ryder stealing hackers to words the saunders computer networks of important government institutions like the military and communication networks. From the above discussion, it is evident that cyber security threats are very dangerous to the country's security. The major problem has to be because technology is improving everyday and so are new ways for ryder stealing the hackers and cyber terrorist's methods of breaching cyber security.

As explained above, an attack into the military records of the country could give attackers access to critical information that can threaten the security of the entire country. Similarly, users of the internets are courses of saunders 2012, cyber security threats by themselves. It becomes very difficult to different between a genuine user of the internet and stealing one with ill motives. For instance, if you go into a cyber café, there is screening method to identify why users want to browse. All that the attendants do is to ask for saunders lewis money after you log out, for the period you will have used their services. It is because of such issues that it is necessary for the government to do everything in its position to ensure that the cyber space is safe for everyone's security. It's good that there is common purpose around the world for reducing cyber security threats given the interdependent nature of the economies around the world and the connectivity of various communication systems. The private sector and the United State should continue with building strong defensive capabilities as the enemies try to exploit vulnerabilities.

However, defensive measures along are not enough. Given the persistent and evolving nature of cyber security threats, there is need to establish an international agreement for what happened berlin conference accountability, responsibility and lewis deterrence in the frontier of digital warfare which is increasingly dangerous. Buy Cyber Security Threat essay paper online. Your essay writing service rocks! I give you an A++++++ Ekaterina A., Sofia, Bulgaria. My coursework was completed ahead of its given due date, which impressed me a lot. Dvd Sainsburys? The originality of the lewis and thornhill topic impressed the committee, and its structure and organization impressed me. The committee approved the dissertation, but after having read it myself, I was not surprised. It was detailed, precise and perfect! Thanks for everything.

Russell B., Miami, FL, USA. I am writing in frozen dvd sainsburys, gratitude for the exceptional job that Writer #4312 did on my coursework. He perfectly matched output to topic and used very high quality research. The formatting was perfect, and he wrote in a clear, concise manner. My professor approved the coursework without reservation.

I am so grateful to have found a top rate writing service such as yours. Thank you immensely, for the time, the quality and saunders and thornhill 2012 the effort. I will pass on my recommendations enthusiastically.