Rock v. Arkansas was a case, which took place in 1983. The defendant, Vickie Lorene Rock, was charged with manslaughter. She was convicted of killing her husband in July 1983. The defendant was unable to remember everything that had happened the night of her husbands killing. So therefore her defense attorney had a doctor, by the name of Bettye Back, twice hypnotize Vickie Rock to allow her to remember fully what happened the night she killed her husband. During her hypnotic sessions she was unable to remember details of what happened at the time of killing her husband. After her two hypnosis sessions were over she was able to remember distinct details about what had apparently happened during the shooting of Frank Rock, her husband. The prosecutor heard about how the defendant was under a hypnotic state when she was giving her recorded testimony. He ordered a petition to exclude the testimony due to the evidence being inadmissible. The court had then limited Rock’s testimony only to the day of her description from the time …show more content…
The court appealed this case because although the reason to challenge the Supreme Court was in the case of defying the Sixth Amendment. The court stated the Sixth Amendment was to make a defendant’s testimony admissible on behalf of the court he or she is being tried at. The reason the Supreme Court appealed this case was because although, the state of Arkansas and other states have used and allowed the testimonies of hypnosis to be admissible in the court, they felt it was an inaccurate way for the defendant to regain memory. Although, the hypnosis did allow Rock to recollect memories, which happened at the death of her husband, the doctor did not lead the interview with direct questions. This then allowed the court to rule the evidence inadmissible because of some of the arbitrary questions asked by Dr.
On October 1, 2003, Dawna Cantrell was arrested and charged with the murder of her husband and two counts of tampering with evidence. Ms. Cantrell’s competency was questioned after evaluation by the defense expert, Dr. Eric Westfried. After subsequent evaluation by the state’s expert, Dr. Edward Siegel, both experts found that Ms. Cantrell had a “persecutory delusional disorder” and that her mental illness precluded her from assisting her attorney in her defense. The trial court found her incompetent to stand trial and ordered a dangerousness evaluation.
When the trial began the accused argued that the 2 year period was sufficient grounds to stay the trial for unreasonable delay,
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
They decided to take their case even further and took it to the United States Supreme Court, hoping to overturn the previous cases that were held at the state level. “We feel that we have a strong case. Arkansas Times is being discriminated against and the state isn’t treating it the same as they are other magazines and newspapers from Arkansas,” the attorney for Arkansas Times told the press before walking into the final hearing. “It’s a discriminatory tax and violates the first amendment.”
1 ) The case came before the supreme court after a young James Acton and applied to play for his school’s football program and had to be drug tested before he could play. It was at this point that him and his parents refused to sign the consent form for the test. 2 ) At the time of the case there was widespread issues with drug use and violence in Schools. This cause searches in schools across the nation for weapons and drugs.
The Supreme Court stated the proof could not be used against the person in state courts and that Dollree Mapp could not be convicted. Mapp was released and her case helped to strengthen the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The matter also limited police power. I agree with the final outcome of the case. I would say the Supreme Court made the right decision with the information given.
. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence a mental health expert in a criminal trial can not offer an opinion on the ultimate legal issue of whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. An opinion is not objectionable just because it embraces an ultimate issue. (704(a)). However, in a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.(704(b)).
Sadly, Baxter died before the case was decided on. Now this case has gone to a higher court where The Montana Supreme Court stated
Then Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that no person would have to be a witness against himself. It gives a person the right to refuse to answer any questions that the prosecutor might ask. The right was created because of the British courts that operated from 1487-1641. These courts believed that a prosecutor did not have to prove a case based on evidence, but rather harassing a defendant into a confession was enough evidence, whether the defendant was innocent or guilty. The right to be free from having to incriminate oneself was a law among nine of the colonies before it was included in the U.S. Constitution.
Johnson also mentions another opinion. She states that many individuals are of the opinion that if insane individuals can testify then repressed memories of a long repressed event should also be allowed in court. However, psychologists should be brought before the court to explain the validity of the memory described (par. 7). At this point no courts have taken that opinion (par. 8).
Legal decisions The supreme decision regarding health care in prison is Estelle v. Gamble in 1976. J.W. Gamble was a state prisoner within the Texas Department of Corrections who injured his back when a cotton bale fell on him. Over the next three months, he complained of back and chest pains, was subject to administrative segregation for refusing to work because of continuing pains, he was twice refuse permission to see a doctor. So Gamble filed his complain in court, under section 1983, claim and unusual punishment in his medical care.
On balance, the probative value of evidence of Ms. Fitzgerald’s drug use is extremely high and substantially outweighs any risk of either unfair prejudice or undue delay. IV. MS. FITZGERALD’S PRIOR DURG US IS EXEMPT FROM THE PROHIBITON ON HEARSAY UNDER RULE
3. How did the defense attorney's attitude change as the trial process progressed (cite specific examples)? The defense becomes more confident as evidence that is more bogus was presented from the DA. For example, when he said that the children had not been abused and their thoughts on abuse and the satanic acts had been coached by the therapists.
He says “the state has not produced one iota of medical evidence.” This makes the jury think about how valid
The fallacies present were mostly Argumentum ad Hominem, Argumentum ad Misericordiam, Argumentum ad Populum and Argumentum ad Baculum. Let’s start with the Argumentum ad Hominem. In real life, the usual court hearings use the ad Hominem attacks because it is more likely to win an argument if you’re going to destroy your opponents’ credibility. There were a lot of witnesses who had experienced ad hominem attacks, but this one has caught my attention and I will use it as an example. The psychologist who tried to defend Carl by his factual statement, but then Atty.