1. Could Cartwright successfully sue Judge Barnes for slander? In this scenario, I do not think the defendant Cartwright can sue for slander if the case that judge Barnes is presiding over (the case of Cartwright) and in fact the statement is true that Cartwright lied about the stolen stereo. First, if this is a true event, then it is not considered a slander. Second, Judge Barnes was not the one discussing the case in the hallway it was Mack Jones the assistant. Mack Jones being the assistant, discussing or telling another person that Cartwright was in fact a liar about not steeling the stereo would be the one to be sued, however that would be hard because Cartwright would have to prove that the statement is false and this was an intent harm. Both would be hard to prove. …show more content…
Where is the harm in this case? Although the judicial assistant was wrong to be discussing the case with his friend especially in a public place. 2. Could Cartwright successfully sue Judge Barnes for libel? If Judge Barnes made the comments in the elevator to Mack Jones, her assistant that Cartwright lied about not shoplifting, and Cartwright can prove he did not steal, then yes. Cartwright can sue the judge for Libel and slander. However, if a judge is handling a case the judges are presented with factual documents about the case and evidences are presented by the prosecuting attorneys. It would be hard to sue the judge when the defendant has no witnesses to prove or facts that can say he is innocent. 3. Does it make any difference that it was the judge’s judicial assistant rather than some bystander who repeated the
According to the FRE, if a declarant makes a statement against his interest, such as an admission of guilt of the matter at hand, that statement is admissible. Unlike other cases of declarations against interest, the declarant in this situation need not be unavailable. Here, according to Molly’s notes, Paul admitted that he was driving too fast and that the accident was his fault. Paul’s admission of guilt is not hearsay and is admissible as an evidence against
Troy Davis went to court and it only took them a few hours of to plead that he was guilty. While the police officers were interviewing the witnesses of crime scene. Dorothy Fara was one of the witnesses for Troy Davis she told them she really did not see what happens. The police officer was then pressuring her to say that she saw Troy Davis do it. The police officer were putting her under so much pressure on her she felt if she did not say what they wanted to hear she would not have been able to leave.
He also supported this tort as using some justice opinions. Responding to the public figure argument, Grutman noted that being a public figure should not take away someone’s rights as a human being. If libel could not protect public figures from verbal assault, then the Court should support the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress to protect
1. i. Relevant Secondary Authority: 31 Causes of Action 2d 121 (Originally published in 2006) (Westlaw). ii. Violates right of publicity (Westlaw Research Skills Three). iii.
During the trial Brown’s attorney gave evidence against Johnny such as two women who said he tried hitting on them, The second girl went on to say that Johnny had apparently tried to rape her on their first date the court Ignored the first girl as evidence due to it being “irrelevent to the case” the second girls argument however was taken into consideration. The evidence favoring Johnny was in greater abundance and had many of Johnny’s friends speaking in his favor. He was known for being caring and this leads to people in his favor stating he truly meant to help Cyntoia not pick her up for
Larry W. Davis was falsely accused for sexual assault and compliance to rape in 1993. Davis was put on trial and eventually sentenced to 23 years and 6 months in prison for something that he did not do. Davis was falsely accused and contacted the innocence project through mail. Davis was exonerated through DNA evidence after serving 20 years in prison. Two men broke into a house and sexually assaulted the cleaning lady, the lady was blindfolded and she could not tell law enforcement who really did this crime.
Despite all the wrongful accusations the jury declared him not guilty for all the charges leveled against
The Scottsboro Trials were a set of trials where nine black boys named Charlie Weems, Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Olen Montgomery, Willie Roberson, Haywood Patterson, Eugene Williams, Andrew Wright and Leroy Wright were accused of on March 25th, of raping two white women Ruby Bates and Victoria Price. These women were pressured to accuse the nine men. The white men that pressured the women told the conductor to stop at the next town so they could get the police. The police arrested the Scottsboro Boys and they were brought to trial. Eight out of nine of them were sentenced to death.
On January 18, 2015, two graduate students were biking at Stanford University when they saw a man raping an unconscious, half-naked woman behind a dumpster. The man saw the bikers and attempted to run away, but the bikers chased him down and tackled him. They called the police and the man was arrested. The man was Brock Turner, a freshman swimmer at Stanford University. He was intoxicated but told police he remembered everything.
Fans of veteran comedian Bill Cosby took to social media on January 23 to voice their support and celebrate a big legal win. Fans tweets well-wishes to Cosby 's official Twitter account and gleefully said they knew all along that he was innocent of raping 40 women. The news broke on Thursday, January 21, but didn 't receive media attention until Saturday morning, prompting some supporters to accuse the media of deliberately tarnishing Cosby 's image and refusing to acknowledge his innocence. Even those on the opposite side of the subject, who believe that Bill Cosby raped at least some of the women who accused him took to social media to weigh in. It 's unlikely that either side will change their opinions on Bill Cosby and his guilt or innocence anytime soon.
Proverbs 19:1 says, “Better is a poor person who walks in his integrity than one who is crooked in speech and is a fool.” When attorneys distorts evidence in any way, it gives the court system a bad reputation with its relationship to the
The Judge forcing people to lie to save their lives he can’t see the wrong he’s doing
Before reading the book Monster by Walter Dean Myers, I disagreed with the statement “Lying to save yourself from being convicted of a crime is an okay thing do.” Reading this book has made me slightly change my mind. Before I read this book I believed that it was never okay to lie to save yourself. Now I believe that is is sometimes okay to save yourself. In the book Steve lied to make himself seem more innocent.
In effect to bypass this rule, Carroll was charged by the DPP with perjury by the claim that he had lied under oath, giving testimony in his murder trial that he did not kill Deirdre Kennedy when evidence proved otherwise. Great dispute arouse from these newfound charges, as the defense made application that the charges executed abuse of process. The Justice Muir denied this accusation, as the perjury charges where based upon different evidence used within the murder trail, therefore withholding breach of double jeopardy. However, the case was then appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal in which the original conviction was overridden due to the establishment of abuse of process committed by breach of the concept of the double jeopardy rule.
Australia believes that your rights are protected if you’re on the wrong and right side of the law. However, it wasn’t in the Dietrich v. The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292 case. Dietrich was a criminal who had a past of committing many crimes.