Assignment 2 Court Case Analysis

Throughout the course of this investigation, the following courthouse was researched to locate any all court documentation for Dennis Baker and Charlotte Baker, as the search was expanded to include Shawna Thornton’s affiliation with the Bakers’.

In my opinion, the charges should have been dismissed against the individuals that pleaded guilty through plea bargain. The reason is that the lawsuit was able to illustrate that the prosecutor was racially motivated to incarcerated American Americans, even if they were innocent. Secondly, there was no strong evidence introduced that would uphold a conviction. The tape recordings that they had were alleged to drug transition occurring, however, you could not hear anything but noise in the background. In addition, the credibility of the confidential informant was questioned, because his stories was switching back and forth indicating that it was possibly fabricated. Lastly, the military drug sweep was achieved unlawfully without the use of

The trial court erred and abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion to admit evidence of prior uncharged incidents of domestic violence, because the evidence denied Mr. Davis of his rights to due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution, in that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative because it was too remote in time to be relevant to the charged crimes and had a prejudicial effect.

On June 28, 2013, appellee, Jennifer Brandeen, (“Mother”), was awarded an absolute divorce from appellant, David Brandeen, (“Father”) in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The circuit court amended its judgment on November 6, 2013. Mother later appealed the circuit court’s decision to this court, where we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment except on a question relating to the court’s marital property award. Father, sought--and was granted--an en banc review of the circuit court’s judgment. After the en banc review, the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed.

Today (February 4th, 2016), I was placed in Courtroom 4C of the courthouse and instructed to sit-in and observe every case brought forward to the judge today. I have to say, some of the cases I heard about today were not your real average day cases. One thing one of my supervisors; Vinny, told me to look out for was the the college/high school students who got in trouble for underage possession because they stick-out like a sore thumb in the courthouse. He said you can tell which ones they are based on the way they are dressed and how nervous they look when they are sitting and waiting for their case to be heard. Vin was not wrong, once the room was open for people to come in, I saw a group of 5-6 college-age students walk in very well dressed and most of them came in with one or two parents next to them. Throughout the day, some of the cases brought forward to the judge

The Eleventh Circuit found that the Commission’s selection process in 2003-2004 “categorically excluded” certain faiths from the list of potential invocational speakers for meetings of the planning commission. Id. at 1282. In addition, the court found that the Commission’s selection of invocational speakers was not based on an impermissible motive because it included diverse religious institutions. Id. at 1278 ( citing Marsh 463 U.S. at 793-94).

On January 13, 2015, the applicant was placed on probation for offences of injuring animals and trespass. These offences were committed on November 9, 2014, when the applicant was 12 years old. In this instance, the applicant caught and beat two sheep, later letting them be mauled by a dog. While there was no conviction recorded for these offences, the applicant was sentenced to three months probation.

Caldwell presents three allegations of error. Caldwell contends that the circuit court erred by denying Caldwell’s motion for a mistrial when State’s witnesses discussed evidence that had been suppressed. Additionally, Caldwell asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for conspiracy to commit a burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. Finally, Caldwell alleges that the imposition of two convictions and sentences for conspiracy violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The State contends that the circuit court did not err in denying Caldwell’s motion for a mistrial, and that his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved. The State, however, agrees that it was improper for

For example an individual is involved in a dispute with another individual and as the first individual beings to walk away and the second individual pulls out a knife and some how or another the first individual stabs the second individual the first individual could use the necessity defense.

While at GPM, I attended a session of Treatment Accountability Court (“TAC”) (formerly Mental Health Court) and DUI/Drug Court. Both Courts operate similarly. Several hours before the court session, members of the legal community meet to discuss the progress of each participate scheduled to appear that day. Legal representatives include members from the Sheriff’s Office, Solicitor General’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, the judge who presides over the proceeding, a Program Coordinator & Counselor, a misdemeanor probation officer, and a felony probation officer. The group discusses the status of each participate and whether they’re meeting the conditions set forth by the court. The programs are conducted in phases,

Would filing a diversity jurisdiction lawsuit in federal district court in the Southern District of Florida result in Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §1927, or some other violations when the defendant resides in Minnesota? It depends. It depends on whether the court will exercise discretion to sanction. The court would likely to sanction Ms. Rodriguez’s lawyer under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. §1927 due to the motives of “home court” advantage and to inconvenience Paulsen. Ms. Rodriguez has meet subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived by Paulsen as can venue, and the choice of law would be Minnesota state law since the contract was created and breached in Minnesota.

Sonia Sotomayer: Florida was violating the 6th amendment in sentencing people to death. Although, with each state having different rules about the death penalty, the majority supreme court decision was that Florida was acting in unconstitutional ways and that both a jury and a judge should have the final say in whether or not to send people to death.

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn.

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Biloxi H.M.A., LLC formerly d/b/a Biloxi Regional Medical Center and now d/b/a Merit Health Biloxi (the “Hospital”), by and through undersigned counsel, and files this its Response to William Kennerly, M.D.’s (“Kennerly”) Rule 59 Post Judgment Motion (the “Motion”), and would show this honorable Court as follows.

The judicial nomination process has changed since 1985 because of Robert Bork which forced presidents to appoint noncontroversial judges. Also, senatorial courtesy has become a major step in the nomination process. A blue slip is something the senator of the state that a judge is from to either confirm or deny them.