Defendant Yun Case Study

The definition of a lawsuit is a civil action brought in court in which a plaintiff demands another person, known as the defendant, pay this person equitable resolve (dictionary.com). In other words they want payment for being wronged in the past. If the case is found to be legitimate and proven justifiable, the defendant pays the plaintiff the awarded compensation. This brings us to the story, The Lawsuit, by Naguib Mahfouz. This tale is about a son being sued by his father’s widow demanding maintenance be paid to her some twenty years after the father’s death. Several of the individuals in this story serve very little purpose.

The Motion to Dismiss should be allowed because Stacey Smith’s (“Plaintiff”) conduct does not constitute expression and the Board of Education of the Town of Douglassville’s (“Douglassville”) dress code is constitutional. Nonverbal conduct constitutes expression when there is intent to convey a particularized message through the conduct, and that particularized message is likely to be understood by others. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410 (1974); Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 401 (1989). In the present case, Plaintiff has established that she intended to convey a message of support for her friend, Fatima Ahmed, and the religion of Islam by wearing the

Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U-Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler’s cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.

Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)

Liang was indicted for second-degree manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, assault, reckless endangerment, and two counts of official misconduct and the top charge of manslaughter is punishable by up to 15 years behind bars.

GSMC and Ocwen objected to the statement and the objection was sustained. “[W]ith respect to evidentiary rulings on admissibility generally and rulings with respect to relevance specifically, the trial judge is vested with wide, wide discretion.” Schmitt v. State, 140 Md. App. 1, 17 (2001). Here, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to the contents of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-1002 requires that “[t]o prove the content of a writing . . ., the original writing . . . is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by statute.” Likewise, Sucklal was prohibited from testifying as to statements made by the author of the correspondence because Md. Rule 5-802 generally prohibits the admission of “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Md. Rule 5-801(c). Finally, litigants must be afforded “a reasonable opportunity to present material that may be pertinent to the court’s decision as required by Maryland Rule 2-501.” Balt. Street Builders v. Stewart, 186 Md. App. 684, 691 (2009). Sucklal, however, was not denied an opportunity to oppose GSMC and Ocwen’s motion for summary judgement. Indeed, Sucklal failed to respond to the motion for summary

On June 19, 1982, Vincent Chin was murdered after his bachelor party in a hate crime driven by an outrage towards the Japanese auto industry misplaced onto himself (Embracing). Neither of his murderers ever spent a day in prison, despite appeals made in court (Embracing). Vincent Chin and his case still matters to Americans and should be made aware to the Wayne State faculty and students by the Filipino Student Society (FilSoc). Not necessarily every single person needs to be told directly by the FilSoc, but at least a small portion of the faculty and student body should become aware of the Vincent Chin case through FilSoc’s efforts.

Borzoi and Reverend Yun have an ongoing counseling relationship. The conversation that took place in December of 2012 was no different from any counseling conversation that took place before. Reverend Yun offered guidance and care to Ms. Borzoi regarding her character flaw and encouraging her to give her support to members of BMCC. Ms. Borzoi made it clear that she wanted the conversation to remain confidential by requesting Reverend Yun’s confidence on the matter and shutting the door. As the senior pastor of BMCC, Reverend Yun has a duty to retain the confidences of her congregants and under Rule 505 she has the right to assert this duty. Therefore, Reverend Yun claims privilege under Rule 505 and the court should strike Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Exhibit C and deny the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Reverend

Decide which witnesses could support the prosecution’s case and which witnesses would support the defense’s case. How does Search and Seizure relate to the B.I.G. case?

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.

Ms. Gershon was deposed at 1 o’clock on September 1st at the office of Plaintiff’s counsel. Her deposition lasted a little over two hours and was the cities primary witness. Plaintiff‘s counsel examination was very easy going and non-confrontational. Ms. Gershon appears to be an older lady, but very put together, well dressed, and appears very educated. Her presentation was very honest and fourth coming. She appears to make a very good witness.

It is unclear if Plaintiff will be available to testify in her case. As stated in previous correspondence, it appears Plaintiff no longer has an interest in pursuing her case due to her failure to respond to our $12,000 offer and her relocation out of the state. Her previous counsel reported that she intended to get new counsel, but we have not received a Motion to Withdraw from the Bowers Law Group or any correspondence from a new attorney.

Severance works somewhat differently in federal criminal trials because this case involves the indictment of more than one defendant Jones, Walsh and Bert. In Bert 's situation, his defense attorney will provide an argument that a joint trail might be unfair against Bert or reaching a decision on the rape charges against him. The Severance is not automatic because the Federal rule 14 allows judges broad discretion in deciding whether to grant a severance to Bert. To be successful, Bert’s defense will to fill a motion for his severance which must show the concerns for Bert 's right to a fair trial outweigh the goals of the joinder. One of the most successful grounds for seeking severance for Bert arises when Bert wishes not to testify on all, some or any of the charges in the trail but chooses to claim his Fifth Amendment privilege on one or more charges. The separating by court order, such as separate trials for Bert, Jones, and Walsh who are charged with the same crime, or trying the negligence aspect of the rape charge or any other charge before the trail. Such division of issues in the trail is sometimes called "bifurcation." ("Burton 's Legal Thesaurus," 4E. (2007).

To summarize the case of Kim v. Son, Jinsoo Kim invested in two of Stephen Son’s corporations, which eventually failed, and Kim lost his money. Son felt bad, he and Kim got together and became very intoxicated and signed a “contract” in blood, stating that Son promised to pay Kim the money he lost and Kim agreed not to sue him. As it turned out, when Son sobered up he refused to keep his promise to pay Kim, so Kim filed a lawsuit based on this bloody contract. The judge declared the contract void due to lack of consideration (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013).

For the mock trial I was assigned to be one of the prosecuting attorneys. After being presented with case materials which included facts of the case, statements from both prosecuting and defense witnesses, penal code for the alleged charges, and map of the crime scene, we as a group decided to create one Google Drive document. There we would upload our parts of the case and help other group members with their assignments.