In a state of hopelessness, the counsel decided not to present nor look for further evidence concerning respondent’s character and emotional state, because he believed it would not overcome the evidentiary effect of the respondent’s confessions to the crimes. The counselor also judged that he should rely on the plea colloquy for evidence about respondent’s background and his claim of emotional stress. The counselor believed the plea colloquy provided sufficient information to the Court about these subjects. He also believed that by not introducing new evidence on these subjects, he prevented the State from cross-examining the respondent on his claim and from introducing its own psychiatric evidence. He also was successful in excluding other damaging evidence from the sentencing hearing, including the introduction of the respondent’s criminal history.
The contempt power, then, is generally not intended to affirmatively cloak litigants with any substantive rights, but rather to assist the courts in exercising its necessary functions. Id. In recognition of this principle, we perceive no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction to consider Father’s appeal of the denial of his petition for contempt because he “was not held in contempt, however closely related and intertwined it is with other orders or judgments” in this case. Pack Shack, Inc., supra, 371 Md. at 260.
If necessary to go further, the present inclination is to require the nomination of a guardian to act for an inept adult. An inept can act only through a guardian; no one but a guardian can auxiliary his decision for a ward. Court Decision : The court decision was to afford the right to the inept persons is to use the substituted judgment. This is a doctrine that close family members or legal guardians substitute their decision for what they consider the terminally ill inept persons, if capable, would have done under these conditions. If such a person, while capable, had implemented the document written living or mercy will, that will would be credible evidence of that inept person 's purpose and it would be given countless weight by the person who substitute their decision on behalf of the lethally ill
Defense attorneys are confronted with the new regulation “special administrative measure” (SAM) as it seemed to overlook the underlying ethical issue. Defense attorneys fully abide by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, they abide by Rule 1.6, which is the requirement of confidentiality. The rule prohibits the use of attorney-client communication as evidence before a court of law. The ethical rule demands that “a lawyer shall not reveal information to the representation of the client.” The rule ensures that the information that is exchanged by the attorney and client is confidential and that it’s not presented in court or to anyone else.
The Exclusionary Rule only hampers police investigations. (How the) Without the rule non guilty parties convicted could be freed with reliable evidence. With having to have search warrants so that the evidence collected is considered “legal” only wastes
Williamson’s employment? Was this even battery at all? The plaintiffs did not want that to be the case, as there is a law preventing personal lawsuits against federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. Holding: The trial court has determined that Mr. Williamson was outside of the scope of his employment. The appellate court however, determined that he was within the scope of his employment and this cannot be sued personally.
Regardless of what is fair and what is not, the defendant has rights during trial. One of those rights under the 5th Amendment is the right against self incrimination and according to Winegar, the 6th Amendment provides a defendant the ability to testify on one’s behalf (2013). However, lack of testimony from a defendant can cause an interference with the jury or cloud their judgement because they were not previewed to what the defendant has to say. According to Hall, the jury is instructed not to guess or assume guilt because the defendant does not put on a defense. (2015) In my personal opinion, if a defendant chooses to testify I believe it should be conducted during pre trial or before a witness or victim can give their testimony.
The second amendment states that there should and will be no possession of firearms for anyone with a felony and/or a mental illness. Yes, the second amendment protects individual gun ownership but is it not obvious that people should not sell firearms or weapons to anyone that seems challenged or incapable of keeping their community safe with a gun? Amendments of course make your liberty excessively known but it should not get
An individual found NCRMD is neither acquitted nor found guilty (Latimer and Lawrence 2006); the court or Review Board may make one of three dispositions: absolute discharge, conditional discharge, or detention in a hospital (Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, s.672.54)." (Miladinovic, Z., & Lukassen, J., 2015, February 25) The outcome of a just trial and its verdict, is based on proof of evidence, which ensures what 's best for the
When being ambivalent, they already have the reasons why they should change and why they should not, which means they are just lacking something that needs to installed by a professional (Miller, & Rollnick, 2013). The counsellor evokes and calls forth the client’s strengths. Compassion is also on the elements underlying the spirit of MI. Although it was added later by Miller and Rollnick (2013) in which being compassionate is explained as being putting people’s welfare ahead and prioritizing their needs (Miller, & Rollnick, 2013). The services social workers provide are entirely for the people’s benefit.