After analyzing Ben Smith’s case, we came to a conclusion that there are enough evidence for Ben Smith to present his case to the court for discrimination allegation. Based on the information provided in the case study there are enough evidence to the favor of Ben Smith that it is highly possible that he will win the case if it is brought to the court’s attention. The law that is protecting Ben Smith in this case is Title VII of the CRA 1964, which prohibits employers from discrimination or segregation on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, in any employment condition including hiring, firing, promotion, transfer, compensation and admission to training programs. Ben Smith is protected by Title VII because he has been discriminated base on his sex “Image” as it is stated in the facts. Based on the information given in the case study, it is safe to assume that Louis Lane Cosmetics Company is only interested in hiring women for this particular position.
This allows the client and the attorney to communicate openly and ensures that confidentiality is preserved (Natoli, 2013-2014). The exceptions provided in Rule 1.6 cover the potential loss of life, property, and reputation but no provision is made to expressly prevent an innocent person being imprisoned. Massachusetts has interpreted the ABA MRPC and made such a provision. The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.07 states, “a lawyer may reveal, and to the extent required by Rule 3.3, Rule 4.1(b), or Rule 8.3 must reveal, such information: (1) to prevent the commission of a criminal or fraudulent act that the lawyer reasonably believes is likely to result in death or substantial bodily harm, or in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another, or to prevent the wrongful execution or incarceration of
Once a person has served the sentence for his or her crime they should be allowed to become productive members of society. However, there should be rules and requirements put into place for the individuals, it should not disenfranchise them completely. Speaking from experience it was hard being released from the Penal System. Gash 2 A lot of companies will not hire felons, different apartment complexes will not allow felons to rent housing nor will certain parts of the government give assistance regardless of the rehabilitations that has been acquired. Being released to Charleston, S.C., in 2008; I was given the right to vote.
HIPAA require a signature to release these records. The client (Carmen) has a second choice which is to have her husband pick the records up the following day, this will be an inconvenience to her husband. Jessica who is the person Carmen has been in contact with regarding the records has offered to mail the record to her. We will take a look at this case and the decisions that were made. * Identify the legal and ethical issues in this case.
Any reports before the 1st October 2010 the Equality Act cannot help resolve the matter. Instead the victim will have to go to a legislation Act that was apparent at the time. The Act was brought in to prevent discrimination in a work place and bring the Sex discrimination Act 1975, Race relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 together into one single Act, called the Equality Act 2010 or the Equal Opportunities Act 2010 (Gov.Uk, 2013). The equal opportunities legislation comes from the equality Act 2010. It is a law that has been put into place to prevent any discrimination against; age, sex, race, disabilities, religion, gender and sexual orientation in a work place or in society generally.
Chapter 12 Peremptory Challenge- A challenge that a party has to eliminate a potential juror, each side has a limited number of peremptory challenges, and it is not required to provide a reason for this challenge, and it may not be used to exclude one gender or race from the jury. Boston vs. Kentucky (1986)- held that prosecutors are barred from using peremptory challenges to remove black jurors because of their race. Challenges for cause- A challenge to a potential juror based on the jurors qualifications or lack of impartiality, (must have a reason) California vs., Green-held that Defendant is entitled to be confronted by the witness against him or her stated by the us Supreme Court. Benefits of being confronted by witness 1. Insures
To the extent that expert evidence relies upon an earlier report, the report will be hearsay. However, as per section 127, it may be admissible, but Running head: UNIT 4 ASSIGNMENT 7 only if the person who provided the original information can reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the matters stated. When expert evidence relies on such a statement, notice must be given to the defence, who must be given the name and address of the person whose statement is relied upon. The defence will then have an opportunity to object and where this occurs, the court must decide whether it is in the interests of justice to permit the expert to base his or her conclusion on the hearsay statement, or whether the supplier of the original information should also be called as a
What NOT to Do When Testifying Name College 1. You should NEVER commit perjury while testifying. Perjury is knowingly telling a lie under oath about something that is important to the case. ◦If a PLEO commits perjury while testifying, the officer may lose his/her job, the officer may face imprisonment and a fine, the defendant may be acquitted, and it reflects negatively on the professionalism and integrity of law enforcement. 2.
Analysis and Application: Legal Rights Afforded to the Accused By Kimberly Fleetwood CJ227: Criminal Procedure January 31, 2012 The police were not required to take any procedural steps even though John had made incriminating statements. If they had made the decision to question him on what he was saying, then they would have been obligated to read him his Miranda Rights. It would seem to me though that the police would not stop him to ask questions. The statements he was making would have surely been admissible in court. The only thing the officers needed to do was to take John’s statement down in their report.
If evidence is withheld, it violates the defendant’s rights and justice will not be achieved. Prosecutors have to follow the Brady Rule, which was established in 1963 after the Brady v. Maryland ruling (Legal Information Institute, n.d.). This rule requires prosecutors to expose any material they have, and any material the government may have, to the defense team. The material exposed is known as “Brady material” (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).This evidence may be favorable to the defendant’s case and may help prove the innocence of the accused and may also shorten any prison sentence he or she may receive. If, at any time, the evidence is not given to the defense, any evidence that has been exposed to that point will be determined unvalid (Legal Information Institutue, n.d.).