Victims and others affiliated in the shooting sued Glock, claiming negligent marketing and public nuisance. Glock aimed for a dismissal for two reasons, that they could not be held liable for the criminal acts of Furrow and as the manufacturer, Glock owed no duty of care to the third-party victims of Furrow's firearm misuse. Furrow's criminal firearm misuse constituted a superseding cause of the victims' injuries for which Glock could not be held responsible. This was before the PLCAA was enacted. This claim had not come to a conclusion prior to the PLCAA, therefore, still
HEARSAY/Non-Hearsay Hearsay – Supra Will Frank Torino’s testimony regarding Nordstrom’s regional manager’s phone call to him (Frank), be admitted as hearsay? If it is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Here, Frank is testifying as an agent of Novelty, that Nordstrom’s called Frank to indicate that Novelty breached their vendor agreement. The NonHearsay would be under “Verbal Acts” since the truth of that matter is not at issue. Verbal acts - verbal acts not offered for their truth.
The case of Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) examines a case of defamation of character by the defendant in which the accused was said to have destroyed Mr. Davis’s name and character by unlawfully soliciting that he was a prior shoplifter to the community when Mr. Davis had in fact been cleared of the charges prior to the solicitation. The Belk Corporation in return could claim procedural due process of the law considering as stated in the case, there were no other witnesses aside for the three involved. Belk’s could claim they had no knowledge of the alleged crime as a corporation and lay the blame on Joan as an individual rather than as an employee of the Belk Corporation. Should the Belk Corporation successfully accomplish this task, Joan would not have had enough probable cause against Garcia to successfully win this case. Joan’s mere suspicion of Garcia is not enough to constitute probable cause.
It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.
However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137). The Lectric Law Library at lectlaw.com (1995-2012) states that “the double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: 1. a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, 2. a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and 3. multiple punishments for the same offense. In this case Armington is incorrect. Armington was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery and assault and battery. The civil tort suit is completely different and therefore does not fall under double jeopardy.
There was not any evidence that the suspect even knew he was being followed. Decision: King entered a conditional guilty plea with his right to appeal to get the evidence suppressed based on it being an illegal search. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction stating
It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. Legal questions to be addressed by the court: Whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement? The decision of the court: With a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the exclusionary rule is not appropriate for violations of the knock and announce rule. The Court noted that a knock-notice violation is rarely the “but-for” cause of obtaining inculpatory evidence. Consequently, when the police violate knock-notice rules by not announcing their presence or waiting sufficient time before forcing their way in),
ANALYSIS -The court of Appeals found out that Alexander was negligent because he failed to check the Hairston’s car which was on the road. The article states “These negligent acts of Alexander -- new and independent of any negligent acts of Haygood -- constitute the proximate cause of injury and the death of plaintiff's intestate, and the negligence of Haygood was shielded by the subsequent acts of negligence by Alexander." Therefore, the Alexander’s act of crashing the Hairston’s car considered to be a proximate cause of injury and death. CONCLUSION -The decision had reversed and remanded because of the entry of judgment in agreement with the jury’s
The jury said that there was no evidence of previous crimes such as this one, so the landlord couldn’t predict this criminal act, because it never happened before, so he had no duty to provide any security in the building area and according to this the case was closed and the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for the entry of judgment for the defendant. That’s what the judge ordered. My opinion: I think that the judge did the right decision, because the owner of the building had no special relationship with the plaintiff, and he doesn’t have a duty to provide a security, but in my opinion that after this case there should be a law that provides security in the buildings for the safety of the persons that live in them. Reference:
What steps must be taken to prove insanity? When the defense claims that their client was not in a state of understanding for what he or she did due to mental disorder is often known as the insanity defense. This is to show that the defendant was unaware at what he or she was doing and should not be held accountable for the alleged actions. In this particular case the term insanity is used more legally than medically, so it is the court’s decision on if there should be a medical professional involved or not. Stu Dents was charged with homicide, kidnapping, assault of a police officer, burglary, and crimes related to drugs.