Case Study: Aci V. Mark Soderlund

The first expert witness represented the Commonwealth of Virginia and is a licensed clinical psychologist. Dr. Ronald M. Boggio’s testimony targeted information from a personal interview with the defendant, he also rendered psychological tests to Mr. Allen to assist in his testimony. When reading the case, it appeared that Dr. Boggio’s had been Mr. Allen’s psychologist is the past or may still be currently. It wasn’t very clear, regardless, he had broad knowledge and experience with the defendant Mr. Allen which leaves his testimony tainted in a sense. The question remains, was his actions ethical or not.

ANNECDOTE. The majority of the High Court in Clark v Marcourt, awarded damages of approximately A$1.2 million to the appellant, as the respondent was found guilty of breaching various warranties of the deed to purchase various property from a fertility centre, putting the appellant at a significantly better financial position than she would have been in had the breach not occurred. Prima facie, Clark seems to suggest undermining the compensatory principle in contract. ## This essay will analyse the decision in Clark through the doctrinal legal research method, using “normative” research. The aim of this research method is to answer the question of “what is the law” via logical reasoning and analysis of appropriate legal rules, and whether it applies to a particular factual situation.

Dred Scott was an African American who had been a slave in Missouri, but starting from 1833 to 1843, he lived in Illinois, which was a free state, and a part of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was outlawed. When he returned to Missouri, he tried to sue for his freedom by saying that by living in an area that was slavery free, it made him a free individual. Unable to win in the state court, he brought a new suit to the federal court. It wasn’t until 11 years after the original suit was brought up was it finally addressed by the Supreme Court. Some issues that were conversed in this case include: If an individual goes into a free state, does it mean the slaves are

The lawyer of a man who is being accused of murder contacted me. It was requested that I be the expert witness and decide if the man, Edward Gein, is mentally fit to stand trial.

At the administrative hearing, the Department’s evidence was entered into the hearing record without objection. The Department’s Representative objected to the Appellant’s Exhibit A-1 being entered into the hearing record as evidence because the Department asked the Appellant if she had additional medical documentation that had not previously been provided and the Appellant indicated that she did not. The Appellant agreed that she did tell the Department’s Representative that she had no other medical information because she “did not understand the question”. The ALJ finds that the Department’s objection to Exhibit A-1 is overruled. Since Exhibit A-1 is verification from a credible source and verifies the Appellant’s

The Alva family enrolled their son, Sergio, at Paradise Cove, a behavioral modification program for troubled youth which was operated by the Defendants. The Alvas then initiated a suit against Teen Help Worldwide Association of Specialty Programs, R & B Billing, Dixie Contract Services, Robert Lichfield, Karr Fransworth, and Brent Facer, alleging a number of tort claims which arose from the enrollment of their child. This initial suit was made in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on February 25, 2000. On August 5, 2003 the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted after hearing arguments regarding the motion on December 16, 2003. The motion for summary judgment was granted and filed on December 17, 2003. The Plaintiffs then did not file their notice of appeal until January 17, 2004, which was after the deadline to file such notice. The court then required the Plaintiffs to show reason as to why the appeal should be honored even though it was late.

According to police reports, Mr. Jonathan Hartshorn was involved in a single vehicle non-injury accident when the vehicle he was operating rear ended another vehicle in the drive thru lane at 1212 S Rock Rd. Officers were called to the accident and made contact with Mr. Hartshorn, who had moved to 1219 S Rock Rd. Officer Reser made contact with Mr. Hartshorn and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Hartshorn. Mr. Hartshorn also had slurred speech. Officer Reser had Mr. Hartshorn perform the sobriety tests, which he failed. Mr. Hartshorn submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of

In Lee v. State, the 14th Court of Appeals held that an expert could testify as to their opinion, of information from a third party. Lee v. State, 418 S.W.3d 892, 898 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, pet. ref'd). Furthermore, the very basis for this court’s conclusion is supported by at least eight justices in the Supreme Court case Williams v. Illinois. In this case, although it was a plurality opinion, eight justices saw “no Confrontation Clause problem with testifying experts providing an independent evaluation of evidence that someone else collected.” Id. This rule becomes even more tailored to our current case because both cases dealt with histological slides specifically autopsies conducted by another pathologist than the one

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,

ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA (1947) FACTS: Like the federal constitution, the California constitution affords a criminal defendant protection against self-incrimination, However, a California law permits the prosecutor to comment on the failure of a criminal defendant to testify in his own defense. California law also forbids the prosecutor to comment on a criminal defendant’s previous convictions unless they come up on cross examination of the defendant. A result Adamson was placed in the position of taking the stand in his own defense and having his previous convictions revealed to the jury or refusing to take the stand and letting the prosecutor draw negative inferences from his failure to do so. Adamson argues that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege

However, if the Court was to perform a Section 12-103(b)(3) analysis today, it would find that the Defendant’s prima facie case is well supported by police reports, school records, an expert witness report, the Plaintiff’s own testimony, the Plaintiff’s own admissions, and the Defendant’s testimony. Whereas, the Plaintiff’s prima facie case is not so well supported. (See ¶¶ 31 through 38 of this document).

Texas Rules of Evidence (TRE) requires expert testimony to have expertise and qualifications regarding the information. TRE also requires that the information provided is a result of generally accepted techniques. An expert's testimony must meet the requirements to establish reliability. Mark Lebeau rushed an out of date EDTA test for the State of Wisconsin. Lebeau did do an internal review for the EDTA. However, the method used has not been peer reviewed. Should the court exclude Lebeau's unverified EDTA test

Also, the expert must be qualified in the certain field of expertise to give evidence. As the qualification can be derived from relevant experience and observation, it is required to ask whether the expert has frequent relevant experience or observation in the DNA analysis in related to criminal cases. If the expert opinion is based on any factual platform such as testamentary capacity, unpersuasive report based on lies or absence of evidence relating to the samples collected, the evidence would be rejected to be taken to the court and the conviction could be

In 2006 the police received an anonymous tip in Salt Lake City that Edward Strieff Jr was selling drugs from his car. Police officer Douglas Fackrell had observed Strieff for a week before detaining him. The officer later discovered that Edward Strieff Jr. had a major warrant out for his arrest due to a traffic violation. After being ran under the system, Fackrell decided to search Strieff and found two different kinds of drugs in his pockets. He was then charged for drug offences.

The 39 year old Streit is a pending UFA carrying a 5.25 cap hit with a limited No movement clause. General Manager Ron Hextall is mostly like needing to retain in the deal but isn't afraid to do so with only half season reaming on the contract.