Second Circuit Conjunctive Analysis Essay

After the Supreme Court review the Wong Sun v United States case, the Supreme Court found that “Wong Sun statement could not be used to corroborate the second defendant’s police statement and the second defendant’s statement could not corroborate Wong Sun’s statement because neither statement was made during the existence of drug conspiracy” (Ingram p.89). Therefore, the Court conclude that the defendants of Wong Sun v United States case deserved a “new trial because there remained no admissible evidence against them” (Ingram

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

1. Develop a detailed selection plan for this position. In this case, you should determine what you want to measure by analyzing KSAOs from the job description and the information on organizational culture in the case, and fitting the selection measures into the plan format as shown in Exhibit 8.2 in the book. The current selection methods are the experience check, education check, Marshfield Applicant Exam, and the Retail Knowledge Test. Do not include the current interview as part of the selection plan.

-Mohair farmers have earned a subsidy from the federal government for decades because the mohair farmers can get large payments from the government without taxpayers ever really noticing because the farmers who get the subsidy care a lot about it, while the rest of us taxpayers (paying mere pennies extra in taxes) do not really care. And, “any politician with a preference for job security can calculate that a vote for the mohair subsidy will earn the strong support of the mohair farmers while costing nothing among other voters” (Wheelan 177).

The defendant moved to suppress the cocaine and inculpatory statements in District Court. Suppression was granted as a fruit of the poisonous tree under the exclusionary rule. The Court of Appeals upheld the motion with the claim that private security officers were 'state actors'. The Supreme Court upheld that the

The appellants complain that the tax court fail to apply debt-equity principles. The secondary inquiry cannot be reached unless the first question concerning whether an economic

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

Consider Exhibit 10 on page 22 of the case; does it include the factors you consider most important in the selection process? Which factors would you be inclined to weight most heavily?

Plaintiffs have moved to dismiss their action against the Defendants under K.S.A 60-241(b). Defendants have opposed this motion because they feel it would be unfair to them because 1) it would not settle the issues in the case, 2) it would deny the Defendants further discovery, and 3) it represents only a partial dismissal of the case because the Court would maintain the protective order. This memo is divided in two main parts. The first part discusses both dismissals without and with prejudice and considers the advantages and disadvantages of both. To choose, which to go with the main question will be balancing the risk of the Court imposing expenses as a condition of dismissal vs. the State foreclosing its ability to re-file

Morris, 331 N.W.2d 48, 53 (N.D. 1983)); Florida v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 2012) (discussing the difference between actual and constructive possession); Brent v. State, 957 N.E.2d 648, 648, 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the defendant did not have actual or constructive possession of a bag of drugs located on the ground, beside a vehicle, that the defendant was in); Hunter v. Commonwealth, 690 S.E.2d 792, 794, 799 (Va. 2010) (holding that the evidence would have supported a charge of constructive possession of a firearm when the defendant/passenger stated that the gun located in the driver’s glovebox was his, but he was not charged with that crime); Martinez v. State, 152 P.3d 1237, 1243 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the defendant’s case must be reversed because he was not aware of the required mental state to plead guilty to constructive possession); Campbell v. People, 73 P.3d 11, 14 (Colo. 2003) (holding that the State must prove that the accused had actual or constructive possession of the drug); Washington v. McPherson, 46 P.3d 284, 291 (Wash. 2002) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of drugs found in another person’s pocket under the accomplice liability theory); Sims v. Alabama, 733 So. 2d 926, 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the defendant had actual possession of the drugs located under the driver’s seat of a vehicle he

See McFadden, 135 S. Ct. 2298; Bruno, supra, at 914-19 (articulating the preexisting circuit split). In resolving the circuit split, the Supreme Court set forth two ways of proving the scienter element, 1) presenting evidence that proves the defendant knew the substance with which he was dealing with was some controlled substance through the operation of the Analogue Act, regardless if he knew the actual identity of substance, or 2) presenting evidence the defendant knew (or made representations that) the substance with which he was dealing with had properties and effects similar to (or greater than) those of a schedule I or II substance. McFadden, 135 S. Ct. at 2306. The Government does not have to prove the defendant knew of the Analogue Act in order to meet either way and it can prove the scienter element using either one of the ways was as well. See id. Furthermore, the Government can use circumstantial evidence to prove the scienter element. See id. In the instant case, the Government contends it can prove the scienter element using either

Rule: ‘“While in some of the cases cited and relied upon by the Commonwealth lesser amounts of drugs were in issue, there was evidence in addition to the drugs themselves which was susceptible of an inference of the intent to distribute and which was inconsistent with the notion of personal use.’ Commonwealth v. Wooden, 13 Mass.App.Ct. 417, 423–424, 433 N.E.2d 1234 (1982).” Com. v. Ahart, 63 Mass.App.Ct. 413 (2005)

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law