Judge Lifoot Court Case

When it comes to jury selection, trial counsel can’t wait until the day before a trial to think about putting together

Everyone was subjected to security including the lawyers and employees of the court house. Everyone was either in some type of uniform or dressed extremely formal, even if they were just spectators. Few people were in the court room, but not many. The judge, lawyers and people that were being represented had not still entered the building. Moments later the plaintiff, Dawn-Evans Donahue, and the defendant Joseph Donahue with their lawyers Michael Morris and John M. Makowski, entered the court room. They had taken their place on each of the court room to make their cases in front of the judge. The bailiff then told us to all rise for their entrance of Judge Polansky. We all rose and took our seats. The court had now been set in motion for deliberation. The judge was wearing the standard gown that is portrayed in films and in real life, there was no jury because this was not a trial court, this was a family matters case.

[3] It is very important for the actor of the court who is questioning the potential jurors to make the panel feel comfortable and keep in mind that some of them might not be comfortable answering some questions in front of others. [3] Therefore, the questions should be open ended in order to try to find out who might be a good juror and who will not and who is trying to hide something. [3] It is also recommend to have a paralegal who can assist with taking notes during the questioning so that the actor of the court making the questions can only focus on that tasks and it can also help the jurors feel more comfortable as well. [3] The notes taken during questioning should include names and descriptions of each potential juror as well as how they answered the questions, what were they doing during questioning, their body position, and were they talking with other jurors among other descriptions. [3] This will help the attorneys or the judge later when they decide which juror will be part of the trial and which will not.

The case of 40-year-old Vincent Li, an individual who stabbed and decapitated a young man named Tim McLean with a large bladed weapon on the Greyhound Bus in Manitoba. After taking the life of McLean, Li then ate parts of McLean lifeless body. Li was diagnosed with untreated schizophrenia. The court deemed him to be not criminally responsible for his murder. NCR for short, means that Vincent Li or anyone who is not of healthy mind are not responsible for his/her actions against the law. Section 2 of the criminal code explained that if one were not of right mind, they would not be able to understand the nature of the proceedings, they would not be able to understand the possible consequences of the proceedings, or have proper communication with

In order to meet this requirement SBS made an arrangement with another accredited private Christian school where they would review and monitor all requirements to make sure they were in keeping with what the district wanted. Over the course of 3 years, 20 students attended these classes.

Maryland Code (1973, 2013 Repl. Vol.), § 3-409(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) provides: “a court may grant a declaratory judgment . . . if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding . . . .” (emphases added). Indeed because “[a] court ‘may grant a declaratory judgement;’ [the] declaratory judgment generally is a discretionary type of relief.” Coverge Servs. Grp. v. Curran, 383 Md. 462, 477 (2004) (quoting CJP 3-409(a)). “Thus, we generally review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny declaratory judgment under an abuse of discretion standard.” Sprenger v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of Md., 400 Md. 1, 21 (2007); Tanner v. McKeldin, 202 Md. 569, 577 (1953) (“[I]t is clear

The final case I will be discussing is, Saleslar, Paul G.v Mahaevan P. The plaintiff, in this case, had loaned the defendant money to start a business, and was now suing for $25,000. In the previous settlement conference, the defendant had admitted fault and agreed to the judgment of paying $1,500 bi-monthly. The defendant did not agree to the terms of payment and was noted in default after breaching the pay agreement.

Gambini wanted to know what the prosecuting attorney knew about the case which is part of the discovery. Of course, the prosecuting attorney agrees to disclose everything about the case and give it to Mr. Gambini. As we have learned in class usually the prosecuting attorney will just hand over the exculpatory evidence without being asked. Jury selection then takes place where the prosecutor asks about how they feel about the death penalty. A women answers that it should be left to the victim’s family. The prosecutor proceeds to give facts about the case which should not happen during jury selection and she says to “fry them.” The prosecutor says she will do. Normally, the defense attorney would excuse them and in a case where the death penalty could be an option they have to make sure that they would be okay with it being an

Our viewing of the trial began with what the judge called “house keeping aspects” for the day, which involved making adjustments to the Jury’s evidence packages/transcripts. A reader lead the jurors through their

Explain the difference between a cash basis and accrual basis measure of performance. Why, in most cases, does accrual basis net income provide a better measure of performance than net operating cash flow? Explain the purpose of adjusting entries as they relate to the difference between cash and accrual accounting.

The concept of this is that it is the judge’s duty to maintain the equilibrium of the trial and between the parties. Although I strongly believe that our law system is exceedingly fair, there are circumstances in which a fair trial is difficult to achieve, for example when one of the parties represents themselves in court such as in the case ‘Dietrich v R’. This causes problems, due to the fact that, in the majority of cases, an accused who decides to go to court unrepresented is highly disadvantaged. This is because, in general, the accused has inadequate awareness of the legal system and lack the expertise and skill to deal with their case in the same way a lawyer would be able to. In circumstances like these, a judge is prompted to lead the accused through the trial in order to ensure that an appropriate defence is given to the jury. This can cause serious problems within the courtroom for many reasons. Firstly, by the judge lending a ‘helping hand’ to the unrepresented, this provides an unfair advantage. Secondly, a trial judge and a defence attorney have two extremely contrasting roles and any attempt by a trial judge to execute an attorney’s role will only result in problems being caused.

Andrew Hessick IIII and Reshma M. Saujani (2002) explain how, “Many attorneys consider the risk associated with going to trial very high because it is well understood that defendants convicted at trial usually receive more severe sentences than those who plead guilty” (p. 211). During trial both sides will represent why they believe the defendant is innocent or guilty based off of the evidence that each side has to the jury and the judge. During this process, the judge sits back and listen because the judge is like a referee according to Judge Walling. Judge Walling states that the judge makes sure the lawyers are following the right protocols. Unless the judge is engaged in the court hearing, they are a neutral party. Francesco Ferraro (2013) backs up what Judge Walling says by addressing that, “Judges must be the tutors of the citizens’ expectations, which, under a system of statute law, will focus on the code.” (p.140). The judges are only there to be an eye for the people and make sure that everything is following the law in the court room. After each side debates on if the defendant is guilty or innocent, the jury comes back and the verdict is given to the defendant.

For the case in news 1, the case is trialed in the Sessions Court. Under the charge of Section 376 (3) of the Penal Code carries a minimum of 8 years and a maximum of 30 years and a minimum of 10 strokes of rotan. The accused was found guilty, and was charged with four sentence of rape. He is given the sentence of 80 years jailing and 40 stokes of rotan. The authorities to support my answer is based on the Section 63 of the Subordinate Courts Act (SCA), Sessions Court have the jurisdiction power to hear all cases except those punishable by death. Base on the Section 64 of the SCA, Sessions Court can give any sentencing except death penalty.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the jury. I am Alan Zhao, attorney for the defendant.

-they could have allowed the case to go on untill proven guilty by a trail than paying the settlement before proven guilty hence looking very unethical and quilty.