Charles Sell Case Summary
As the court found SMI is not responsible for Nurse Fink’s action. Though plaintiff stated a claim for battery but she did agree to the procedure through informed of consent. The court ruled in favor of SMI although plaintiff was being lied to about the drug she was administered with. The court decided to “vacate the court of appeals’ memorandum decision, reverse the judgment of the trial court, and remand the case to the trial court for further
A broken finger is a minor, non-life threatening injury, and could have occurred while the prisoner resisted the officers. If the prisoner decides to file a petition in court, he could use the Whitley v Albers case as a precedent and the eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment along with excessive force to argue his case. 2. A prisoner was prescribed medications that made him feel unpleasant, but prison officials forced him to take the medications regardless of his protests. This inmate has a case against prison officials
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
Other court cases were used during this trial to show their rulings and that they were not found inhumane. The effective use of logos in the court document helps persuade the audience that the case of Oregon Vs Tuel, were Mr. Tuel who committed a less offensable crime, but still received a life sentence that was within the guidelines of the state constitution. Judge Haselton of the Oregon Court of Appeal effectively uses rhetorical appeals to support the court’s original sentence as constitutional and fair. The use of expert doctors Bolstad and Sacks to determine that the possibility of rehabilitation is almost impossible and very unlikely for Mr. Kinkel.
In this case, a divided married couple Charles and Tracey Thurman experienced a vicious split-up. Documents report, the first time Tracey had contact with the Torrington Police Department (TPD) (October 1982) was after her husband became violent towards Charles Thurman, Jr (son) out of the residence. Sadly, officers from the TPD refused to take Tracey's complaint resulting in the escalation of Charles violent behavior. As the violence escalated on November 09, 1982 while Tracey was sitting in her vehicle Charles approached, and started yelling threats and untimely resulting in him smashing her windshield. This was all witnessed by TPD Officer Neil Gemelli as he stood on the street watching Charles activities.
The Supreme Court tested again the procedure and criterion of competency for execution of a mental illness defendant in 2007 in Panetti v. Quarterman (Panetti I). The Supreme Court ruled in Panetti that to be executed an inmate must not only be aware of the reason for his execution, the inmate must have a rational comprehension of the State’s reasoning for his
The majority found nothing irrational in the state’s application of Strickland given the defense’s efforts to discover mitigating material, which included interviews with Rompilla and his family members, and multiple mental health experts. It was noted that the lawyers did not find any information that could be useful in any school, medical, or police records and that the lawyers would have looked through the records when their other efforts gave them reason to. Rompilla’s case was then distinguished from
The Supreme Court ordered that such “deliberate indifference” to an inmate 's “serious medical needs” was a violation of that inmate 's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This case guaranteed three basic rights: the right to access to care, the right to care that is ordered, and the right to professional medical judgment.
The case prosecuted under the court of Appeal of Ontario, Her Majesty the Queen v Danny Lalumiere, in 2011, was intended to appeal the conviction of counseling to commit murder. The appellant argued that the life sentence was not appropriate and was outside the range of sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offenses. This is an example of a case where legal guilt was used to provide a conviction. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of a psychiatrist doctor, Dr. Pallandi, who provided a profile of the accused and concluded that the appellant was pathologically predisposed to commit an offense. The appellate court ruled against the Crown’s decision at the trial, stating that the appellant lacked moral culpability for his offenses and therefore the sentence was not deserved.
This gave a moral framework that prohibited medical treatment to be executed. Regarding, drug administration it is only a doctor’s duty that can administer the effects of drugs, no one else is able to prescribe the drug because he or she does not know about drug’s effect on humans. In this case, giving medicine to the Singleton was contrary to medical goal because the purpose of medicine is treated not to kill a person. If Charles Laverne Singleton stays in prison, he did not harm anyone, and he was not a threat. He suffered from schizophrenic and it was a kind of
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
These factors raised a debate within the justice system as to whether a trial should be held. Hopkins’ history of drug abuse was also taken into play as
Many patients have also claimed to feel pain during their operations. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and three other justices acknowledged that the district court relied on a fake expert witness who quoted from unknown sources and made claims that did not align with actual test data, but ultimately voted against using midazolam. Overall, it was decided by the majority that the prisoners failed to establish true evidence to prove the three part execution drug violates the Eighth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor explained, “In contending that midazolam will work as the State intends, Dr. Evans cited no studies, but instead appeared to rely primarily on the Web site www.drugs.com.” In my opinion, I think the Court’s decision was justified because there were only a few cases where the anesthesia only served to paralyze the victim while still allowing them to feel everything.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that prison staff (whether doctors or officers or any others) violated the Eighth Amendment if they were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of prisoners.
Limitations recognised throughout the SDM process were related to risk of further deterioration in the Consumer’s mental state. As the Consumer was slowly taken off his medications, in a safe clinical manner, his presentation deteriorated. The Consumer’s sleep pattern worsened due to the elevation in his mood, there was a noted increase in impulsivity and poor boundaries with others on the inpatient unit, leading to the Consumer becoming vulnerable. There was a prominent increase in erratic and aggressive towards others, leading to the assault of a staff member on the inpatient unit and subsequently required the use of restrictive interventions. The decline in mental state resulted in the Consumer’s father, case manager and treating team coming together for a family meeting with the Consumer present in which the previous medications the Consumer had been previously prescribed were recommenced in an attempt to re-stabilise his presentation, unfortunately this was a substituted decision made by the consumer’s father and treating tream.
More about Charles Sell Case Summary
Duncan V. Scottsdale Medical Imaging Ltd: Case Study
776 Words | 4 PagesWhitley Vs Albers Case Summary
405 Words | 2 PagesCase Of Fitzgerald V. Lawrence
1157 Words | 5 PagesRhetorical Analysis Of State Of Oregon Vs Kipland
853 Words | 4 PagesCharles V. Tracey Case Study
616 Words | 3 PagesPanetti Vs Quarterman Essay
63 Words | 1 PagesRonald Rompilla Vs Jeffrey A Beard Summary
890 Words | 4 Pages8th Amendment Case Summary
57 Words | 1 PagesAppeal Of The Queen V. Danny Lalumiere Case
1100 Words | 5 PagesCase Charles Laverne Singleton
920 Words | 4 PagesRock V. Arkansas Case Study
507 Words | 3 PagesSubstance Abuse: The Case Of Millar Vs. Hopkins
302 Words | 2 PagesGlossip Vs Midazolam
356 Words | 2 PagesEstelle V. Gamble Case Study
375 Words | 2 PagesSupported Decision-Making Analysis
1750 Words | 7 Pages