News Reporter Brazburg Case Summary

As questioning continued, she was asked about specific crimes that she had been accused of committing. After the testimony had been taken from

because they withheld material evidence that could have changed the sentencing part of Mr. Brady’s trial. Mr. Brady was not innocent in his crimes but the prosecutor held back and did not disclose ahead of time information on a confession and “due process requirements not only

Penny Ann Beernsten, a thirty-six year old small business co-owner and physical fitness instructor, went through a traumatic experience on the afternoon of July 29, 1985. She jogged at a stretch of Lake Michigan shoreline in Wisconsin. She was planning on meeting with her father at the beach at 4:00 PM and she started the jog at 3:50 PM, but was grabbed and taken to the woods where she was raped and deprived her of oxygen by suffocation until she passed out. When she woke up, she walked out of the woods, where couples comforted her until she found her husband and finally the police. (Possley).

The information obtained from the unorthodox tactics of the FBI will fail to be used as evidence in court. The FBI agents’ acquired information from certain individuals will be rejected in court due to the methods of torture the FBI forced the individuals to undergo. The FBI’s investigational procedures will also be declared as duress and hearsay by the court as sufficient evidence is lacking to prosecute the defendant and the means to extract the information out of the individual, such as the Mississippian Mayor, is certainly of a barbaric nature. “Just remember whose rights you're violatin'!,” ([Alan Ward screamed at Rupert Anderson], Mississippi Burning, 1988). Additionally, the FBI are violating their own code of conduct and the civil rights of others by torturing and threatening specific citizens of Mississippi, such as when the FBI agents arrived at the area Lester was working and pushed him to come along with them- this,

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),” the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution” (Judge, 2015). Other cases that show where officers of the courts credibility is put into question can be found in United States v. Bagley where “also clarified that impeachment evidence must be disclosed to the defense” (Judge, 2015), this had to do with police informants who the defense could have impeached their testimony, and in the case of Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), “imposed upon the prosecutor an affirmative "duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government 's behalf, including the police," and a resulting duty to disclose that evidence to the defense” (Judge, 2015). The above mentioned cases all deal in some form with a person’s right to be able to have a fair trial when they are charged with a crime, and shows examples where the prosecution is required to disclose all evidence even when it is in favor of a defendant.

Mr. Hesterberg acknowledges not being available to for all visits offered to him. The father reported that there were times when he was offered additional time, but was not able to take it. He indicated that his job in New York City did not prohibit him to be able to go to Florida when the mother offered visitation.

“… to gather news it is often necessary to agree either not to identify the source of information published or to publish only part of the facts revealed, or both; that if the reporter is nevertheless forced to reveal these confidences to a grand jury, the source so identified and other confidential sources of other reporters will be measurably deterred from furnishing publishable information, all to the detriment of the free flow of information, protected by the first amendment.” (3)

Withholding information at trial is also an illegal practice that is seen in these two cases. In McMillian’s case, the state makes deals to shorten prisoners’ sentences if they testify against McMillian. In the Sullivan trial, the “police [collects] seminal fluid and blood, but the state [chooses] not to present it in court and then [destroys] it before it [can] be tested by the defense” (Stevenson 257). The similarities between the cases are what link them together.

Two important legal cases have given employees specific rights during investigatory interviews. The case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), gave rise to employees’ Weingarten rights: Employees that face disciplinary action, or questioned about matters that could lead to disciplinary actions against them are entitled to their Weingarten rights. In the case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Garrity Rule was established. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to order police officers to answer questions under threat of losing their jobs, and then to use the answers to incriminate them. These two rights are important for employees to know

Right to accusation of serious crime by the grand jury before any criminal charges for illegal crimes.

ISSUE: (1) The police department continued with the interrogations process that led to incriminating statements without reading the defendant’s rights.

During our negotiation with D.G. Barnhouse (DGB), we intend to utilize an integrative bargaining strategy with management. Before coming to this conclusion, we weighed the advantages and disadvantages of a distributive approach, however, we eventually decided to take an integrative and predominantly interest based stance versus a position based stance in our negotiations after assessing internal and external environmental factors. In addition, we settled on this strategy because we ultimately believe that management and the union share at the very least, one fundamental common interest, which is the firm’s financial stability. That being said, even with our plans to use integrative bargaining, we still plan to negotiate assertively to achieve

The underlying issues in both cases are racial discrimination. For Cheryl Boulden in the affirmative action case the issue is being “an African American woman among the good ol’ boys in Indiana.” She was recruited because of race and her permanent handicap was seen as an asset for a diversity program lacking any. Yet these qualities made her a target of racism. Susan Finn’s ethnic discrimination presents a dilemma of how to deal with a contract physician’s abusive behavior “toward Hispanics and female staff as well as patients” (Reeves, 2006, p. 79). While the issues of racial and gender discrimination is not unusual, the failure of these agencies to address multiple complaints is.

In upholding the decision of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to penalize broadcasters for televising “fleeting expletives” in the Fox Television case, the U.S. Supreme Court signalled the diminished importance of reasoned administrative justification and a broadened acceptance of political justifications for changes in agency policy. This political turn in the doctrine governing agency reason giving is closely connected with a gathering movement to reconceptualise the legitimacy of administrative agencies in terms of their political— and specifically, their presidential—accountability. Traditionally, valid reasons establishing this connection have taken the form of empirical evidence, policy arguments, agency expertise, or logical

In 2007, Conrad Black, a prominent journalist, publisher, and investor was convicted of three counts of fraud and one count of obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to six and a half years in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $125,000. Later on, Mr. Black had two of the counts of fraud overturned on appeal. Mr. Black served only 37 months in a U.S prison before being released in 2012 and retuning to Canada (McFarland 2014). The case study of Conrad Black will be used to evaluate how human beings behave under various circumstances. In the 1990’s Mr. Black built one of the biggest newspaper groups in the world (Lemieux, 2011). He owned a newspaper group known as Hollinger, which he progressively grew from its roots. After Black had stepped down as the CEO of Hollinger, it was realized that he had been engaging in fraudulent activities. For instance, he had paid Hollinger’s executives a lot of money