R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The disputing factors are if Hampton was under the control of the Appellees at the time of the collision and whether he was within the authorized time and space limits of his employment. The Appellees argued that they could not exercise control over Hampton as he was off duty between delivery runs, therefore, he was not under the scope of his employment during that time of the accident. The Appellant contended that under the authorization of his employer, Hampton was merely on a short refreshment
This paper will demonstrate how the jury system fails and lacks the capacity to judge and indict the accused because of the jurors’ bias and flaws in problem solving. Jury nullification should not be seen as a big part of the court system and their powers to indict an accused should be limited. Granting the jury members the ultimate power to make a decision of guilty or innocent based on
Equally important, the reason for denial of a consuel was absolutely absurd. They did not grant him a fair trial like others because they claimed that, “the state doesn't have to provide a poor person with a lawyer unless "special circumstances" exist” (Streetlaw). With this in mind the main reason the anti-federalists created the bill of rights and added the 6th amendment was because of people who were unable to obtain a counsel for their defense. Further proving that the Supreme court sided for Gideon’s rights when reopening his case and giving him counsel for the fair trial he should’ve had before. In brief, Gideon had a right to a counsel for his defense since it was his constitutional right under the 6th amendment rather he was poor or
This is important as he completely opposed the justification of military necessity by the government and military using concrete evidence of the government itself attempted to destroy files rather than merely evaluating specific cases which could not give a whole picture of the whole problem as it could be argued as outliers；which makes it irrefutable as it is undeniable that the government had misconducted , giving value to the argument that the degree posed by Japanese-American was not equivalent as there are no concrete evidence of Japanese-Americans being disloyal. However the purpose and content of the source is limited for historian studying the Japanese Internment Camps as it mostly circulates around the justification of Military Necessity; thus had mainly used evidence of false accusation of Japanese-Americans being disloyal and how government files had
The qualities that he lacks to demonstrate shows that he is not an effective judge by any means. Judges must possess these characteristics to be effective because they need to have the to make sure every person has a fair trial in the eyes of the law. Danforth was biased and all through Act 3 we can see that he is ineffective by not be law-abiding, far, or willing to listen to the
Mandatory Minimum Sentence Laws Foster Uncontrolled Prosecutorial Discretion Evils Prosecutors do not get the training on how to sentence, meaning that if they do, they will not conduct the activity with utmost transparency (Bernick & Larkin, 2014). When the prosecutors have unreviewable discretion to sentence under the mandatory minimums, they end up not performing this duty responsibly (Bernick & Larkin, 2014). The aftermath is that uncontrolled prosecutorial discretion results, which is considered by Bernick and Larkin (2014), to be a far much greater evil. This is especially true given the fact that when the prosecutors have unreviewable prosecution power over the charges that they can decide to bring a charge to a violation of the law using a mandatory minimum
While there might be times where discrimination was involved in the lack of promotion for individual, however, this particular case study seems to lack the ability to truly provide how this is possible. According to Robinson (2010), Prima Facie involves the process of having sufficient evidence before trail in a lawsuit or in some situations criminal prosecution cases (p. 27). Based off the information provided in this particular case study it would see that Carol is in a bit of a bind regarding Prima Facie. It does not appear that Carol has sufficient evidence to prove that there is illegal discrimination. While it is unfortunate that Carol was not selected for the position that she desired, it is challenging to prove if there was indeed discrimination
Specific course requirements might remedy some of the deficiencies of incompetent advocates such as inadequate knowledge or understanding of rules of evidence and/or procedure, but would not affect the deficiency of lack of preparation for trial. Trial advocacy courses would have a remedial effect on lack of preparation only to the extent that unpreparedness for trial is a result of not knowing how to prepare adequately. An empirical analysis of the Indiana rule concluded that the course requirements were not effective for promoting or ensuring competence, at least not in terms of bar examination results. Declining pass rates on the Indiana bar examination had led to the adoption of the rule. This is not to say that trial advocacy courses are not valuable but that their capacity to remedy this major deficiency of incompetent advocates is
prosecution, which led them to believe that there were many issues within the system that led to the wrongful conviction that needed to be fixed so another minority was not charged with a murder that was not committed by them. The Inquiry found that the investigation was not done suitably for the standards that the police, and the Crown have. The case’s evidence was insufficient due to lack of investigation at the crime scene, of the witnesses, and of the charges pursued. There was also an insufficient amount of sensitivity of this case due to the fact that it was the prosecution of a visible minority and the lack of training done on the respect to sensitivity on visible minorities. As well as the absence of sufficient review led to the wrongful conviction because they didn’t review the first eyewitness reports and relied only on the second report, which were influenced by an incompetent and unprofessional
SG § 10-222(h)(3). “‘On appellate review of the decision of an administrative agency, this Court reviews the agency’s decision, not the circuit court’s decision.’” Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Prigel Family Creamery, 206 Md. App. 264, 273 (2012) (quoting Halici v. City of Gaithersburg, 180 Md. App.
The 2011 federal district court opinion from the Middle District of Pennsylvania addressed a general public misconception regarding the Rule of Evidence 701. Indeed, Eric Lyons attempted to use his x-ray results and his physical symptoms against the defendants even though he lacked the expertise to prove that his broken rib injury resulted from his fight against Anthony Boyking. Furthermore, Lyons also believed that his contender benefited of the defendants’ involvement to defeat him. Certainly, Eric Lyons may have been accurate about his rights under the Eight Amendment, however, the law could not take into consideration his testimony due to the fact that his deposition would not qualify as a subject matter expert in the medical field. Thus, the pretrial order the defendants pursued to prevent the plaintiff 's personal contribution regarding his physical symptoms is legit regardless the truthfulness of Eric Lyons’s statement.
Justice William Douglas stated that the sterilization of habitual offenders had no defined correlation to them procreating offenders. In addition, Justice Douglas argued that this act was also a form of discrimination that targeted minority groups unlawfully. In an argument concurrently with Justice Douglas, Justice Stone argued that the act was in violation of due process because it didn’t have a hearing on merely the basis of whether criminal traits are inheritable, specifically in Skinner’s
The Pilots argue that the current rule violates both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). First, that the discrimination of age is in “direct conflict” with the ADEA. Secondly, that it is in violation of the APA, because reasonable alternatives were not considered, a decision was reached in opposition of the evidence offered, and also that no reasoning was provided for the basis of treating
The state also argued that the protected interests were not created by the U.S constitution but by its institutions. They also explained that suspending the students would hurt their reputations and make it hard for the students to find employment. The court argued that the state had no authority of suspending the students because it deprived each of them of educational