Funk V. United States, Case Brief Essay

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

The struggle for equality has existed throughout history. The color of a person’s skin seems to depict everything about them. Not only was this an issue in earlier times, but the present as well. The battle to overcome inequity was made significantly more troublesome in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896.

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

It states that the government cannot make a person testify against themselves. A trial relies on witnesses and evidence and not the testimony of the accused.

Therefore, Etzwieler could not be held liable even though it may appear that he was an accomplice to Bailey’s intoxication

The foundation of modern right to counsel through court-appointed attorneys at the expense of the government for an indigent defendant accused of a serious crime was made possible by the ruling in a U.S. Supreme Court landmark case, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).

an explanation of why and how each decision was made throughout the entire trial. The basis

I believe that it´s the same offender in the Parkinson case and the Johnson case, which is making the offender a serial killer because he has killed 3 people and it has been over a period over 30 days. By looking at different serial killer typologies my firm belief is that this offender will fall into the lust serial killer typology. I concluded this by firstly looking if the crimes were act-focused kills or process kills, I concluded it was process kills because the offender had taken the time to abduct both Parkinson and Johnson and didn 't just kill them right away like an act-focused killer would do. With the offender being a process killer he could only be organized as well because process killers cannot be disorganized. The offender would either be a lust killer, power-control killer or a thrill killer. I concluded that the offender in this case would not be a thrill serial killer, since this kind of murderer gets off my seeing his victims suffering, which is the most important factor for this type of offender. In the Parkinson and Johnson murders there were no signs of torture on the victims bodies and therefore I do not believe that this offender would be a thrill serial killer.

In response, the news reporter Branzburg (as well as others involved Caldwell and Pappas) said that in order to gather information for news, a lot of the time they had to make promises and commitments not to reveal sources and keep discrepancy; that it was a part of their job description. To make reporters divulge confidences to a grand jury would deter potential sources and prevent the “free flow of information” protected by the First Amendment. (LexisNexis). Both reporters agreed that there were situations where testimonies should be given, but that the government had to provide a “compelling interest” or “sufficient grounds” are established that show the interrogation would provide relevant or useful evidence for the case. The reporters claimed that the First Amendment rights were violated upon the forced disclosure of confidential information by the court. “The heart of the claim is that the burden on newsgathering resulting from compelling reporters to disclose confidential information outweighs any public interest in obtaining the

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

The evidence has established that the Defendants have not violated any clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable public official should have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3044 (1987); Turner v. Dammon, 848 F.2d 440 (4th Cir. 1988); Taratino v. Baker, 825 F.2d 772 (4th Cir. 1987); Young v. Lynch, 846 F.2d 960 (4th Cir. 1988) (application to disciplinary committee members). Qualified immunity "is intended to allow public officials to act, with independence and without fear of consequences, where their actions do not implicate clearly established rights." Turner v. Dammon, supra, at 443 (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554

Smith case that forces journalists to testify if the information «can’t be obtained any other way» is one more argument for those who are against the «reporter’s privileges». They say that it may be resulted in setting the criminals free for the lack of evidence. However, District of Columbia, as well as 31 more states, apply shield laws, «legislation designed to protect reporters' privilege that involves the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the newsgathering and dissemination process», and Departure of Justice puts restriction of federal agents and prosecutors who want to subpoena reporters. With this system, there has never been a case where justice has suffered or a case in which a suspect was set free because a reporter couldn't give

The early federal courts failed to issue strong opinions or even take on controversial cases. The Supreme Court was not even sure if it had the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress.

Where the admissibility of a confession or other item of prosecution evidence is disputed, the judge will often hear evidence in the absence of the jury before deciding the question. This procedure is known as a 'voir dire’ after the type of oath administered to witnesses who give evidence during it . Where the admissibility of a confession is disputed, the defendant will usually

The case of Grutter V. Bollinger was based on a racial decision by the University of Michigan Law School denying Barbara Grutter entrance. She had a good GPA and a good place on the LSAT, and she should have been allowed into the school without her race being considered.