ISSUE: Should Appellant Jewell have been convicted of possessing a controlled substance despite no positive knowledge of such possession, where Appellant had a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth? RULING: Yes. Trial court conviction was affirmed. Dissent by: KENNEDY,Circuit Judge, with Judges Ely, Hufstedler and Wallace. RATIONALE: The legal premise of the jury instructions was sound.
The suppression of hate propaganda signifies an infringement of individual’s freedom of expression. An activity that conveys a message through non-violent forms of expression is protected under the s.2 of the Charter regardless of how offensive it is. Moreover, there was a misapplication of Charter, which made s.319 (2) of the Criminal Code to fail the proportionality test. There was no relation between the criminalization of hate speech and its suppression. Although his comments were offensive, they did not pose any threats they way violence or violence threats would have.
The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order. Frank’s argument states that people have the wrong idea about a minor law and go against it, but they should act as if it is a violent or serious crime.
Even when an illegal arrest occurs does not necessarily mean that all errors will justify invoking the exclusionary rule. The courts have stated that even if the officer’s actions taken were reasonable under the circumstances, which comes under the good faith doctrine, therefore no misconduct needs to be deterred and the exclusionary rule will not apply ("The "Good Faith" Doctrine"). The officer has to prove to the courts that they have the good-faith
Rationale: This is a very important part of the case brief. You must explain the gist of the court ruling, (i.e., why the court arrived at its holding). The court ruled that even though Ronnie’s punishment was prolonged and uninterrupted and may also be unconstitutional claim they felt that it was not considered to be too harsh and it was not outrageous. They also ruled that it was rational and related to a legitimate purpose. The court found that there was no merit to the claim that there was indifference and that it was deliberate.
The District Court denied relief and found that the counsel made judgment errors in failing to further investigate mitigating evidence, but the respondent 's sentence did not result from any prejudice from any of the counsel’s judgment errors. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Sixth Amendment provided criminal defendants with a right to counsel who provides "reasonably effective assistance given the totality of the circumstances." The Court of Appeals outlined the standards for judging whether a defense
The issue is whether M. Bega’s conduct was outrageous and intolerable. This element is satisfied when the outrageousness requirement "is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved." Id. "It is insufficient for a defendant to have acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal." Russo v. White 241 Va. 23.
The thesis of this piece is that believing in something that you do not genuinely believe in for your own benefit leads to corruption and destruction. 2. The writer’s style is straight-forward. This style helps to advance the piece’s meaning because it is very succinct and does not beat around the bush. Paine delivers his message very clearly and efficiently.
A. O’Connor v. Donaldson 1975: In this precedent, the supreme court decided that the presence of mental illness alone is not enough to warrant involuntary confinement. If the patient is no longer found dangerous to him/herself or others, there is no justification to continue confinement. Commitment needs to be justified on the basis of mental disease and dangerousness. This precedent is applicable to the case of Mr. Y, because the statement above states dangerousness and mental illness as a basis for justifying continual commitment for Mr. Y. If the preponderance of evidence shows that Mr. Y is dangerous due to his mental disease, then deciding to civilly commit him would meet the requirement of this precedent case.
One of Gopniks main point states that the Bill of Rights emphasizes process and procedure rather than principle. What this means is that a criminal can abuse his rights for his own protection. For example Gopnik quotes Stuntz by saying that a criminal can get off a charge simply because the officer who made the arrest didn 't have a proper warrant. This proves the basis of the Bill of Rights following the one track minded belief that process and procedure is the only way to properly operate a system. Both Stuntz and Gopnik believe that the Bill of Rights could be the cause of the unstable justice system that plagues our communities today.
301). The accused right under section 8 of the Charter in R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R. 301 was violated; however, it was not as a result of the throat hold. The charter violation was on the basis of the unlawful search of the resident without a search warrant, even though the throat hold has taken place. However, it was concluded that the evidence would not affect the fairness of the trial and they should be admitted (R. v. Hamill,  1 S.C.R.
An act is wrongful usually only if it has some consequence. The police and the prosecutor acted in an unreasonable and legally reprehensible way when they omitted to put Clint into custody, while being fully aware of how great the risk of the harm to Anne and Bernice eventuating was, and what the gravity or seriousness of the harm was likely to be. A delict (wrongful conduct) is the act of a person which, in a wrongful and culpable way caused loss (damage) to another. There is a causal connection between the police and prosecutor not putting Clint in custody, and Anne being assaulted. Had they put Clint in jail, Anne would not have been assaulted by
We can conclude that the decision made in R v. Macdonald does fit Liberal Legalism but not that perfectly. The officer did infringed Macdonald’s rights, something that the judges acknowledged but it was reasonable and made to prevent harm. The sentencing itself was to make the police power of safe search a more clear form of relationship regulation. The judges’ sentencing and logic was based on precedent and was quite objective and neutral, with no agenda involved. So, the R v. Macdonald case more or less fits with Liberal Legalism because the decision fits on its idea of individual liberty and the harm principle, they made their decision with relationship regulation in mind and everything they did was based on legal reasoning and precedent and thus
The Court contended that because the warrant was valid, existed before the stop, and was unconnected with the stop, it sufficiently attenuated the seizure of the evidence from the unlawful stop as an independent and intervening circumstance. Finally, the Court held that the misconduct of Officer Fackrell was “at most negligent” and did not constitute flagrancy as required by the Brown factors of attenuation. On these grounds, the United States Supreme Court held that the evidence was indeed admissible because “the discovery of the arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unlawful stop and the evidence seized from Strieff incident to arrest” (Thomas, Utah v. Strieff: Opinion of the