COMPLAINT This matter was opened by bar counsel on January 25, 2017. In or about December 2016, while preparing for hearing on B.B.O. File Nos. C5-14-0055 and C5-16-0008, bar counsel learned that the respondent, Laura Marshard, an assistant district attorney in the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office, had allegedly provided information concerning an ongoing police investigation to the target of the investigation. Bar counsel also learned that Marshard allegedly violated the Rules of Professional Conduct while handling a criminal complaint.
Case Name: Williamson v. City of Houston Citation: 148 F. 3d 462 Date Decided: 1998 Facts: A female police officer, Williamson, sued the City of Houston under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in which she alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment, and thereafter retaliation for reporting the harassing behavior. The female officer further alleged the behavior created a hostile work environment. Williamson maintains she was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of sexually explicit comments and behavior after transferring into the division. The individual engaging in the offensive behavior was her male partner, Officer Doug McLeod. Williamson stated the behavior continued for eighteen months and was comprised of unwelcomed physical contact and humiliating comments about her body and her appearance.
May it please the court that the State of Louisiana violated the first and sixth amendments on the grounds of the Zeitoun vs State of Louisiana case. Zeitoun believes he was unlawfully discriminated against due to his race and religion, and imprisoned without a proper trial, kept in cruel and unusual circumstances, and his dietary restrictions were not met. Is it not stated in the first amendment that congress will make no law respecting the establishment, or prohibit the free exercise of a religion? If this is not in the amendment please correct me but I believe it is, and the government forces who put Mr. Zeitoun through much trouble and arrested him are in the wrong. Mr. Zeitoun says that he was mocked when he prayed and they said he was
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
The case of Jordan v. City of New London and Harrigan (1999) centers around Jordan bringing a civil rights action against the city and Harrington alleging that they denied him equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 4, Section 20, of the Connecticut Constitution (Jordan v. City of New London, 2000). The facts as presented to the court are that Jordan and 500 other police applicants voluntarily took the applicant screening examination for being a police officer in the state Connecticut in early 1996. The testing material included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which purports to measure cognitive ability. An accompanying manual listed recommended scores for various professions and
Analysis of issues in the motion to suppress. Argument a) The police relied on the information provided by CRI-2 to form the ground for an affidavit seeking to obtain a search warrant. The information from CRI-2 was not credible and could not be independently be relied upon or verified.
Pitt university approval of this type of behavior the harassment is only going to continue. Julie Godzik police dispatcher is married to Robert Bob Godzik Maintenance #3 and me being a witness for Samuel Varriano in a complaint filed with the EEOC on defendant Robert Godik I believe that 's why I am being harassed. On the same
Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case.
Briefly describe the 1984 case of Denice Haraway. Describe the Ada police mistreatment of Tommy Ward and Karl Fontenot with regard to the case. Make connections to the Ada police mistreatment of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz. Denice Haraway was at a local convenience store, where she was assumed to be kidnapped with no traceable evidence. Haraway’s body was never found nor was it proven she was kidnapped supporting her disappearance.
The doctrine of transferred intent, which is highly criticized by Dressler as a useless and potentially misleading legal fiction, see p. 122 - 125, is not followed in Texas. Instead, in Texas, the issue of what happens when a different person or property than the target is injured or harmed or otherwise affected is an issue of causation. The same is true when a different offense than the one desired, contemplated or risked was committed. Section 6.04 (b) TPC says that a person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what the actor desired, contemplated, or risked is that :(1) a different offense was committed, See Thompson v. State, 236 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. Crim. App.
Introduction Texas v. Johnson was heard before SCOTUS on June 21, 1989. The two parties involved are Protester Gregory Lee Johnson vs. the State of Texas. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Texas statute prohibiting the desecration of certain venerated objects, including state and national flags in the case of Texas v. Johnson. The Supreme Court ruled that the burning of the flag is symbolic speech protected by the Free Speech Clause and the statue was strike down.
Washington v. Texas (1967) is a US Supreme Court case about the right of criminal defendants to have witnesses testify on their behalf. The Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution applied in state courts as well as federal courts. At his trial Jackie Washington had attempted to call his co-defendant as a witness but was blocked because state law prevented co-defendants from testifying for each other, under the theory that they might lie for each other on the stand. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment gives defendants the right to fair proceedings, including the right to compel defense witnesses to testify. In previous cases, the Supreme Court
According to the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Whistleblower Protection Programs, Hopson should have been received protection from workplace retaliation. However, this was not the case; he did not receive workplace protection, so he pursued legal action. As the result of the lawsuit filed by Justin Hopson, the state attorney general’s office conducted an investigation into the state police and found only seven officers guilty of harassment. Punishments ranged from reprimands to 45-day suspensions.
One of the best rights granted to the individuals in America is the privilege to be viewed as honest until demonstrated blameworthy in the court of law. It is the job of the prosecutor to demonstrate to the on lookers, to the jury, and to the court that the blamed is liable for a wrongdoing. In the event that the prosecutor has a substantial case, the blamed, either on his or her own or joined by an experienced lawyer, can display different defenses to contend why they acted in the manner in which they did. Schmalleger (2010, p. 114) states, “A defense consists of evidence and arguments offered by a defendant and his or her attorney(s) to show why that person should not be held liable for a criminal charge”. In the framework of the Criminal
On January 15th, 2018, the defendant, Mary Taylor, was accused of refusing to serve the plaintiff, Brianna Banks, at Mary’s Diner located in downtown Atlanta. Ms Banks, an African American woman, claimed that she walked into the diner, sat herself as customers were directed to do, and, after 20 minutes of waiting in the diner during what she described as a “slow time”, was not helped by Ms Taylor. Banks then proceeded to get up from her table, caused a loud altercation with the hostess at the diner, accusing the business of being racist and claiming that “if her skin was white, she would have been helped within seconds”, and then exited the establishment. After leaving the diner, Brianna Banks went home and did some research on Mary Taylor,
