Recommended: Criticisms of tweedle v atkinson to privity
Id. There was no evidence presented by the prosecution that the defendants knew about the drugs or even knew that there was a cooler in the cargo area. Id. at 806. The prosecution cited no authority for the proposition that a jury could infer knowledge of the drugs because of employment status. Id. at 807. The court reasoned that the occupants’ stories were not inconsistent and that knowing the owner does not lead a reasonable person to infer that the defendants knew the drugs were in the cooler.
On April 26, 1983, Matthew N. Fraser (Respondent), a student at Bethel High School in Bethel, Washington, delivered a speech nominating a fellow student for student elective office. Approximately 600 High School students were in attendance, many of whom were 14 years old, the assembly was a part of a school sponsored educational program in self government. Students were required to either attend or go to study hall during the assembly. Prior to reciting the speech, Fraser sought guidance from two teachers, who both informed him that the speech may be seen as lewd and improper, as well as met with potentially severe repercussions. During his entire speech: I know a man who is firm — he’s firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm — but most… of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.
The Supreme Court case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), involved Gerald Scarpelli who was on probation in Wisconsin for armed robbery, but was found in violation of the conditions set for his probation, when he was charged with burglary in Illinois. Scarpelli had been originally convicted in July, 1965 after he was arrested for the armed robbery, whereas he had plead guilty to the crime. However, he was fortunate that he did not have to serve the fifteen years he was sentenced to, due to the Judge suspending his time and instead placing him on seven years of probation. Per standard practice for probation, the judge placed requirements and restrictions that were to be followed, in order for him to remain on probation and
This document is from the dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan in the Plessy v. Ferguson trial decided on May 18, 1896. His audience is the assenting Justices, and any citizen of the United States that reads the decision handed down by the court. Justice Harlan wrote his Dissent to the case to establish that the assenting judges were amiss in their decision to uphold the Louisiana Separate Car Act. Justice Harlan believes that the decision of the court is wrong on the basis that, if read as purported the U.S. Constitution has no caste, and is therefore color blind. He says “the white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country.
It was Ricky Franklin Smith fourth offense, in which he was known as a habitual offender. He pleaded guilty to a charge of breaking and entering. During his hearing in the Court of Appeals, Smith suggested that he deserve a resentence due to the fact his charges was base upon his expunged juvenile criminal record. The Court of Appeals referred back to the case in People v. Price, 172 Mich App 396, 399-400; 431 NW2d 524 (1988) that suggested that in pursuant to MCR 5.913 when a juvenile record is expunged it cannot be used in a sentencing. Whereas, People v. Jones 173 Mich App 341, 343;433 NW2d 829 (1988) states that an expunged juvenile record can be included in an investigation report and in a sentencing(People v. Smith, 2017).
Ms Harnum was 30 years old at the time of her death and was ethnically Arya-Caucasian born in Canada (R v. Gittany, 2014). She was unemployed before her death, due to Mr Gittany advising her to quit her career in the hairdressing industry (R v. Gittany, 2014). Mr she had a good relationship with her mother (R v. Gittany, 2013).She had no criminal history, however she had an eating disorder as a teen that resurfaced during her relationship with Mr
This memorandum is written in response to your September 1, 2015 request for information regarding the case of Samuel V. Morgan. The analysis will show that Samuel is liable to pay the fine. Robert is a senior weight lifter and member of the Alpha Chapter, Beta Phi Gamma Fraternity, Inc. at Howard University. Although he is strong, he is extremely slow moving which forces him to limit himself to fighting with people who are considerably smaller than he.
Gideon V. Wainwright The case starts with the arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon who was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Gideon was a runaway, having left home around eighth grade he became a drifter. He wandered around from place to place and spent time in and out of prison of prison for many non-violent crimes. He eventually found some part time work at a pool club, the same club room he was accused of breaking into and robbing.
I do agree with Justice Scalia’s principal argument for not using the exclusionary rule to the knock-and announce violations. I think in some cases that knocking on the suspect door can give them time to prepare themselves and maybe hide evidence. Yes, the rule is set to reduce property damage, but in some cases, officers can get shot if the people inside the house are aware that they are committing crime. For instance, if a person is a drug dealer, he sure knows that its illegal. So, having the officer knocking on his door, he probably won’t open or will open with a gun point out.
The Park Doctrine, also called the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine, is a criminal case that failed to comply with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, where violation of company provisions was not met in order to uphold proper standards. Even if the company is unaware of their violations, the violation still stands due to an official appointed the position of making sure all provisions are properly met. (park powerpoint) The Park Doctrine stems from a case back in 1970, when national food chain owner, John Park, was advised by the FDA of their unsanitary conditions including an infestation of rodents in one of their facilities.
Julian can file the Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, also known as form I-601, to seek a waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility. The I-601 waiver is one of the best options for Julian because it would let him re-enter the United States legally. This waiver waives the “unlawful presence” and “misrepresentation” grounds of inadmissibility for foreign nationals who have a US citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent. In order for the I-601 waiver to be approved, Julian must prove that his U.S. citizen wife would suffer “extreme hardship” if he were not granted permanent resident in the United States. In this case, one of the “extreme hardships” argument would be the fact that Angela is suffering from a medical
Issue 6- Does the Act violate the Procedural Due Process? Conclusion 1.
Introduction Undue influence is a vital concept under the contract law. It exists in situations where one party to a contract entered into an agreement with the other party due to the result of pressure exerted to him by that other party. The innocent party who has been subjected to the pressure may then seek an action to set aside the said contract. Undue influence can be said to be developed from the doctrine of duress under the English Common Law.
The question requires one to discuss as to what extent has the “Presumption of Innocence” as articulated by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v DPP [1935] , has changed in light of Human Rights Act [HRA] 1998. Woolmington v DPP is a landmark House of Lords [ HOL] case where the Presumption of Innocence was first articulated # . In delivering his judgement for a unanimous Court, Viscount Sankey made his famous "Golden thread’ speech . ‘Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner...
Should the Postal Rule be Abolished? Contract law is a form of the law which focuses on agreements made between two or more parties. Contracts can be made in an informal manner and can also be made formally. Most people would recognise a contract to be a formal written document which states the conditions, warranties and description of an offer being made. However, that is not always the case.
