Tulsa, Oklahoma, on July 5 at around 11:45am in the north side of the city, former Marine 33 year old Craig Wingard was transported to the hospital in critical condition. Craig had been shot by a man that went inside the house that Craig was in front of, came back out to started to shot. After shooting Craig, the shooter fled the scene in a dark vehicle with paper plates, this according to witness. Craig was shot four times in his chest, hand, and legs.
The children could hear the terrifying screams from their siblings in the bathroom. One by one all five entered the bathroom where their mother waited for them, unfortunately not a single one would make it out alive. Within six months of this heinous crime Andrea Yates the mother of these five children was put on trial. The evidence presented by both sides in the courtroom, would have long lasting effects on everyone involved in the case, as well as the millions of Americans that were following the trial. Visual testimony in any trial, especially a murder trial can have many effects on the outcome of a trial. Both prosecutors, and defense attorneys have a huge burden to fulfill in order
A seemingly uncorrelated death of a child becomes an attack on two businesses that brought forth unwanted attention. It reveals how corporations can truly neglect their surroundings and the safety of citizens without remorse. In the quaint town of Woburn, Massachusetts, the death of Anne Anderson’s son due to leukemia quickly transformed from a personal tragedy to an extensive lawsuit. Anne Anderson approached Jan Schlichtmann, a personal injury lawyer, to tackle the case. From the beginning, Anne makes it clear that she does not want money, she simply wants an apology. At first, Jan rejects the case because he does not see money being made from the case. However, after a fateful encounter with a police due to speeding, Jan had the chance to scan the environment which promptly changed his mind
One can be easily mislead or persuade in a direction they do not agree with. However this is not the case with Juror 8 (Mr. Davis) in the film 12 Angry Men. In this film, twelve jurors try to identify whether or not the convicted eighteen year-old boy is guilty of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. If the puerto-rican boy is found guilty, he will be sent to the electric chair and sentenced to death. The movie begins in the humid jury room by taking a vote to see whether or not the boy is guilty: eleven guilties and one not guilty. At this point Mr. Davis (the only not guilty vote) could have easily switched his vote and sentenced the boy to death, however he did not. This is where some men get aggravated. This film shows the many ways the men try to persuade one another to change their vote through the characters of Mr. Davis (Juror 8), Juror 4, and Mr. McCardle (Juror 9).
“This gentleman chose to stand alone against us” (Rose 240). Juror Eight and Antigone chose the path of the unpopular opinion in the two works Twelve Angry Men and Antigone. These two morally based individuals feel they have a civil duty to uphold to the person whom they are defending. The jurors of Twelve Angry Men are faced with deciding the fate of a teenager who supposedly shot his father. Antigone, Haemon, and Creon are to choose with whom their loyalty resides--the State or the gods. Courage presents itself in people who fight for a cause greater than themselves.
The film “Twelve Angry Men” involves a lot of logical fallacies, some of which are quite prominent and provocative. Like for eg. The fallacies which involve racism and bigotry of Juror #10 and the anger revealed which manifests into personal anguish by Juror#3. The script introduces the viewers to the typical behavior and the state of mind of these jurors, who surprisingly turn out to be the last to change their opinions from “guilty” to “not guilty”. Juror#3 the frustrated father whose personal conflicts and experiences influence his view of the accused’s crime is very desperate to make it clear that his mind is already made up before the deliberations even start. Similar
Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning.
Colin Newmark was diagnosed with cancer. The cancer was life threatening. His parents were Christian Scientists and refused to consent for chemotherapy for Colin. Their refusal was protected under State Law as it exempted parents from the neglect and abuse statutes if the refusal was supported by medical reasons. The plaintiff, Child Protective Services petitioned to continue treatment for Colin.
Analysis – The clear decision of the court was that they did not want anything that
A Washington police officer stopped a student at the Washington State University after observing the student was carrying a bottle of gin. After asking the student for identification the student informed him that is was in his dorm room. The student, followed by the officer, then went into his room get his identification. While the student was searching for his identification, the officer noticed that the student 's roommate, had marijuana seeds and a pipe on his desk. The officer asked the students if they had additional drugs in the room and the students provided him with a box with marijuana and money. Another officer arrived on the scene and they search the student’s room and found additional drugs. The student (roommate of the original student) was charged with possession of a controlled substance.
Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded
The case Howes v. Fields was involved with the Miranda rights. The case is about an inmate´s confession about a sex crime without having the police officers questioning him telling him his Miranda rights. Mr. Fields had been brought to the jail of Michigan because of disorderly conduct. While being in jail Mr. Fields had been questioned by the police for several hours about the disorderly conduct. He was not told his Miranda rights, but he was told he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted too.
The period of the trial was the 1910, more specifically the trial started on May 13, 1910 (pg.1). During the 1910 America was still developing into a world power, and many immigrants from other countries where attracted to t he prosperity that was available in America (Baily, S. L., 1983, pg.281). New York State specifically was one of the fastest growing states in the country with one of the best economical prosperity for native workers, and immigrants (Baily, S. L., 1983, pg.281).
According to Kaufman, "the whole interview process was inappropriately calculated to persuade Ken and Janet Jessop that their earlier times were wrong and to modify those times”. The interview was 150 minutes long and no formal statement was received from them, nor did the officers have any detailed notes to provide. “(One of the investigating officers) admitted that they told the Jessops that their times were wrong," the judge said. The end result was the changing of times by the Jessops. The officers recorded their new arrival time as 4:35 p.m. That opened a window of opportunity for Morin to abduct Christine and commit the crimes. In 1997, the Jessops told Kaufman that they still strongly believe their original time of 4:10 for the inquiry.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program.