Case Analysis: You Will Be The Judge

The Melton v. Young case is about a high school student that was suspended for wearing a jacket with a Confederate flag. The issue that was discussed is, whether or not the school officials could suspend a student for wearing Confederate flag. The clothing sparking racial tension was also discussed. The racial tension from the previous year was an argument for the defense because it can be said that the jacket could have refueled this. The defense also stated that the Melton family was informed of the new rules and chose to break them. The plaintiff’s argument was that the student’s suspension was unconstitutional and the confederate flag is a part of his heritage. The district court ruled the school’s dress code policy unconstitutionally

Bridgett Bishop, a married, middle-aged woman, was the first colonist to be tried in the Salem Witch trials, found guilty and hung for practicing witchcraft in June 1692.

MILLERSBURG — Despite a plea for leniency expressed by the victim, a Sugarcreek man was unable to overcome a long history of criminal convictions and a bond violation when a Holmes County judge on Wednesday sentenced him to prison for making unwanted phone calls and threats to several members of a family over a period of months.

This is a respectful submission of the prosecution arguments regarding the case R. v. Collins. The arguments will show that the evidence ceased at from the accused should be admissible in the court of law as a Mrs. Collins section 8 Charter right was not violated (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). Case laws along other judge’s interpretation will reinforce the arguments presented. The paper will establish arguments based on reasonable grounds, the good faith doctrine and the admissibility of evidence. The accused was arrested by two Royal Mounted Canadian Police (RCMP) officers at the Cedar’s Pub with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265). The accused deemed the search conducted by the RCMP

The State of Florida vs. Casey Marie Anthony who did not report her missing daughter Caylee Marie Anthony for 31 days. It was the maternal grandmother Cindy who reported in a 9-11 call and said that she had not seen Caylee for 31 days and that Casey’s car smelled like there had been a dead body inside it. A utility worker found Caylee’s remains in a wooden area. A high profile case captivated the nation. The prosecution and defence lawyers have agreed upon only one thing that is the juries are invariably unpredictable. Facts Common Sense and Justice are key factor in this case. No matter what the outcome it is the jury that make the decision and not the government

The case of R. v. Schoenborn is a troubling case involving the death of three children and the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. This defence must be critically analyzed along with the evidence and expert opinions as it could absolve the accused of the charges. As well, the precedent that the verdict provides is critical to the legal system and its future implication and thus give the decision more importance. After a thorough examination of the facts, it is evident that the verdict of the Supreme Court of British Columbia is correct and reflects the administration’s objectives and beliefs. This will be demonstrated through the application of legal principles and elements.

In his, essay, "The Dead Baby Mystery," Gawande mentions a child abuse court case that involves the deaths of eight children of Marie Noe that no one could explain. As an example of how no one could explain the deaths, Gawande writes, "some of the most respected pathologists of the time, could find no explanation for the crib deaths" (202) and "Foul play was strongly considered, but no evidence was found" (202). With the use of these points in his essay, Gawande presents a broader sense that cases, like Marie Noe, for child abuse do not have an easy outcome in determining guilt. Even three decades later — Marie Noe's case was reopened, and the judged charged her — one of the officials wrote back to Gawande explains "that there was no direct

CM conducted a CFT/Court hearing at the Jersey City Courthouse for Leandro Fontoura (Youth). In attendance were Jasmine Alexander (CM), Daniela Pacheco (parent), Leandro Fontoura (youth), Edna Davie (YES- Coordinator), Rate Maza (YES- Intern) and Lee Kennedy (MRSS- Crisis Intervention Specialist). The Strength and Needs Assessment was completed and the crisis plan was reviewed. Needs and strategies were discussed and family vision was reviewed.

In the late evening hours of October 30, 1992, Terry Toops, Warren Cripe, and Ed Raisor were at Toops’s home in Logansport, Indiana, drinking beer. Around 3:00 a.m. the following morning the trio decided to drive to a store in town. Because he was intoxicated, Toops agreed to allow Cripe to drive Toops’s car. Toops sat in the front passenger seat and Raisor sat in the rear. Toops began to feel ill during the drive and stuck his head out the window for fresh air.

Two cases that were more surprising to learn about than others were; the Ingraham v. Wright (1977) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The Ingraham v. Wright (1977) case because of how the principal hurt the child and didn't have proof. The Grutter v. Bollinger case was surprising because I didn't know that you colleges be unexpected because of race in 2003.

The Mental health court session that I observed was focused on issues regarding commitment issues. There were seven cases on the docket on the day that I attended. The cases ranged from individuals dealing with bipolar disorder to paranoid schizophrenia. Some of the individuals had been brought in because they had made threats to their families and to members of their communities, while others had reported to having hallucinations and delusions of people trying to harm them. One of the cases that stood out the most, was an individual suffering with paranoid schizophrenia had been in and out of institutions for most of his life, and the main reason for the individuals return was due to being noncompliant with medications.

This comment then defines prominent societal and criminal justice considerations as they relate to abused children who kill, and examines cases that move toward a more appropriate legal responses by remaining cognizant of these considerations in classifying offenses and imposing corresponding sentences. In conclusion, this argues that classifying parricidal killings as voluntary manslaughter acknowledges the criminal nature of both child abuse and homicide striking an appropriate balance among societal goals and theories of criminal justice. It then emphasizes that upon finding of guilt, whether by trial or plea, courts must fashion appropriate sentences that adequately and effective

The field of healthcare involves decision-making in every sphere of its life cycle. Decision-making can pose a challenge in cases where there is less or negligible domain-specific knowledge. Although there exists ample amount of understanding of the way the healthcare domain works, it has its share of uncertainties and complex situations that call for an explicit understanding of the relation between various occurrences of events, likely causes and effects that govern the domain. In such cases, experience plays a crucial role in assisting the decision-making process, and one such approach to medical reasoning is the Case-based reasoning (CBR) approach, that uses previous experiences to solve new problems. This approach relies on

Facts of the Case: On the morning of August 26, 1976 Clifford Bailey and three other prisoners (James T. Cogdell, Ronald C. Cooley, and Ralph Walker) were at the District of Columbia Jail, where they removed a bar from the window and proceeded to use bedsheets that were knotted together in order to escape for one month to three and a half months out of custody (“United States v. Bailey Et Al”, 1980). This led to the violation of statute 18 U. S. C. § 751, which is about escaping the federal jurisdiction of custody from them. The escapees did not immediately turn themselves in, but did say that they did not do so because they were told, indirectly by who they claimed was the FBI, that they would be killed

In the decision Murray J and Murphy J found that although the parent’s decision was “unwise and disturbing” they did not fail in their duty to the child and it was their decision to make and not the State. Murray J stated that in order for the state to intervene there must be an immediate and fundamental threat to the capacity of the