Assignment 2 Court Case Analysis

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.

We all do our best to protect what is ours, but how far will we go to do that and will it justify our reasons behind our actions? Whether it’s protecting our properties and possessions, or family or even ourselves, situations get out of hand and we are faced with making decisions that could change our lives and the lives of those around us. The tiniest detail can determine ones actions as justifiable or unjustifiable. For Don Luis Ceballos and Judy-Ann Laws Norman their actions of defense were unjustifiable according to a jury.

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,

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

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.

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).

MILLERSBURG — To pay for some necessary improvements at the jail and increasing inmate medical costs, Holmes County Sheriff Timothy W. Zimmerly and the Holmes County commissioners have agreed to do some cost sharing and shifting of revenues from housing out-of-county inmates.

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

Build the management-research question hierarchy, through the investigative questions stage. Then compare your list with the measurement questions asked.

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.

The Third Circuit erred in finding VHI have third-party standing, and his lower court’s decision should be reversed. In general, litigants do not have a standing to assert the rights of others, unless the litigant meet the constitutional and prudential requirement of third party standing. Litigants does not meet constitutional limitation of third party standing unless they sustain or will sustain injury that is actual and imminent. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 108 (1998). Moreover, Litigants does not meet prudential requirement of third party standing unless litigants share a close relationship with the right holders, or unless the right holders have a genuine obstacle to sue by their own. Amato v. Wilentz, 952 F.2d 742, 749 (3rd Cir. 1991). Under this analysis, VHI does not have a third party standing because VHI does not meet either constitutional or prudential requirement of third party standing.

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.

The following assertion intends to provide an in-depth insight into my personal experience observing a trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This paper will outline a selection of many pressing issues noticed throughout my observation, more specifically those regarding the law and language in legal arenas along with symbolic and architectural traditions that reinforce prejudice towards those from a low socio-economic background and ethnic minority groups. Furthermore, it will argue how symbolism, architecture and practices within a court are in place to create a power dynamic and reinforce the courts British-'western' sovereignty and royal-like wealth which in turn intimidates members of the community especially from

In Tennessee there are multiple ways a Juvenile can be tried as an adult. If the court found reason to believe that “ the child committed the offense alleged, (2) the child is not committable to a mental institution, and (3) the interests of the community require that the child be placed under legal restraint” (Ojjdp, 2016). The law records different factors to be analyzed by the court in making these discoveries. For the most part, the juvenile court's choice is not instantly appealable; be that as it may, if a nonlawyer settles on the choice to exchange the case, a unique arrangement qualifies the child for an instant de novo rehearing criminal court level (Ojjdp, 2016). A child who has been transferred from a juvenile court by the choice of a non lawyer is qualified for

I chose this topic for this week’s forum: Supreme court of the United States Randy White, Warden v. Roger L. Wheeler on petition for Writ off Certiorari to the United States Court of appeals for the sixth circuit, , No. 14–1372. Decided December 14, 2015