The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing education.” The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights. Reputation alone is not constitutionally protected interest. The three justices (minority opinion) disagreed with the findings of the majority. The dissenting opinion reasoned that the decision justified that intrusive action defamed and stigmatized the respondent as a criminal. Justice Brennan, writing for the minority, reasoned an illegitimate and improper enforcement of law that assaulted the constitution (Chicago Kent College of
Executive Privilege: Confidential communications between the president and his advisers do not have to be disclosed. The justification for this practice has been the separation of powers and the need a president has for candid advice. During the Watergate Scandal, President Nixon refused to turn over tape recordings of White House conversations. The Supreme Court, ruling on executive privilege for the first time, held that there was a sound basis for the practice, particularly in military and diplomatic matters, but there was no immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. Impoundment of funds: From time to time presidents have refused to spend money appropriated by Congress.
No warrant was obtained for these searches. Ross’ attorneys made a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence found in the bag and the pouch on the grounds that the warrantless search of the car does not extend to searching closed containers found within. Ross was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute. The heroin and currency found in the searches having been introduced in evidence after Ross’ pretrial motion to suppress the evidence had been denied. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, while the officers had probable cause to stop and search Ross’s car,
Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Stewart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence on January 7, 2008. The federal court denied his motion on February 14, 2008. The trial court ruled that the suitcase was abandoned, defendant did not express possession after learning its location, and since defendant abandoned the suitcase, he did not have an expectation of privacy in the suitcase or its contents. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea on March 6, 2008. Defendant appealed his suppression hearing under his right to appeal.
The District Court found that company management regarded Wilson as disabled when in fact he was not and terminated him as a result of his perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court rejected the company's contention that Wilson was laid off during a reduction in force necessitated by business conditions. During the trial, Wilson's attorneys pointed to an e-mail Phoenix's president Robert Hurst sent to an associate stating Wilson "qualifies for ADA designation and we will have to consider accommodations." But when Wilson requested a larger computer screen and help with typing, his requests were denied. While the court did not rule on the issue of whether the company violated Wilson's ADA rights by failing to provide accommodations, this case shows what employers should not do when trying to determine if an employee is disabled.
The trial judge denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The question in this case is that did the defendant in this circumstances, and evidence had a duty to provide the security against any criminal act as the one that happened? So we
The blood found on Hytch’s sandal could not be aged. The blood could have gotten there anytime and there was no evidence to support the theory that she bled before she died because the body has not been found. At his second trial Hytch’s defense lawyer, Harvey Walters, argued that the whole case against his client hinged on dodgy scientific evidence. The defense called its own forensic expert who disputed the DNA evidence linking Ms Antonio to a sandal worn by Hytch on the night of her disappearance and the jury subsequently acquitted him. REFERENCES Jackson, Andrew R.W., and Julie Jackson.
His reason- he felt that they were not giving him the rights he deserved by denying him access to the law library and the state Attorney Grievance Commission. Unlike Colin Ferguson, Stewart was able to prove his innocence and was acquitted of the murder charges. The Washington Post stated that the only thing left of this case was the prosecution thinking twice about the quality of their case, if someone who was a high school dropout was able to beat them. No one went back and asked if he was denied any rights, possibly because Stewart came out of the court room
Summary of the Case Eric Michael Clark was charged with murdering an Arizona police officer. Clark was a paranoid schizophrenic and was not able to submit evidence during his trial that would exonerate him of the ability to commit the crime charged. Under Arizona law, Clark was permitted to present evidence of his psychiatric condition to support an insanity defense. Arizona law states that an insanity defense must establish by clear and convincing evidence that as a result of mental illness at the time of the crime he “did not know the criminal act was wrong.” ("Clark v. arizona," 2006) The judge in Clark’s case refused to consider psychiatric evidence to reject his mens rea, due to nonsupport of Arizona case law. Clark’s conviction was also sustained by The Arizona Court of Appeals.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.