Perjury can be committed if a false statement is made under oath before any body that has lawful authority to administer an oath to the witness who appear before it. To constitute perjury the false statement must be material and has to concern a matter that has a bearing on the proceedings. Criminal contempt is deliberate conduct to obstruct or embarrass a court of law or conduct a demonstrated degrade of the role of the judicial officer. There are two types of criminal contempt direct contempt is the act committed in the presence of the court and indirect contempt is that act committed outside of the courts presence. Obstruction of justice is the attempt to interfere with the administration of public justice.
Held: 1. The Petition Clause does not provide absolute immunity to defendants charged with expressing libelous and damaging falsehoods in petitions to Government officials. Although the value in the right of petition as an important aspect of self-government is beyond question, it does not follow that the Framers of the First Amendment believed that the Petition Clause provided absolute immunity from damages for libel. In 1845 this Court, after reviewing the common law, held in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266, that a petition to a Government official was actionable if prompted by "express malice," which was defined as "falsehood and the absence of probable cause," and nothing has been presented to suggest that that holding should be altered.
Assault is defined as “the intentional causing of an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Apprehension does not mean fear but does require the plaintiff to be aware of the impending contact” (Edwards, Edwards, & Wells, 2012, pg. 34). Murray was the victim of an assault because though he did not have his glasses on, he knew that the men were going to throw him into the pool. Our textbook defines false imprisonment as “committed when a person intentionally confines another” (Edwards, Edwards, & Wells, 2012, pg.
This article does not protect an acting noncommissioned officer or acting petty officer, nor does it protect military police or members of the shore patrol who are not warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officers. Knowledge. All of the offenses prohibited by Article 91 require that the accused have actual knowledge that the victim was a warrant, noncommissioned, or petty officer. Actual knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence. I could have also been charged for lesser charges had things would have escalated worse off.
Define the following terms and/or any requirements/tests/applications that pertain to them: Plain View: 1. Plain view is any illegal item that is within the sight of an officer. __ Anything that in plain view of an officer can be seized without a warrant and won’t intrude on anybodies fourth amendment rights.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2. Horton v. California was the leading case on the plain view doctrine. This case states that if an officer finds any evidence in plain view the find has to be completely accidental.
United States, 1932. It states basically that a person cannot be tried for lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence in subsequent trials. A person can be tried on lesser and greater crimes using the same evidence if the crimes are tried together in one trial. This does not constitute double jeopardy because the defendant is not tried twice using the same evidence. The Blockburger test, in the Court's words is this, "The test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does
What is the difference between “civil” and “criminal” asset forfeiture? Criminal asset forfeitures are items that directly involve a person that has been convicted of a drug related crime. These items must be part of the case during the indictment. Civil asset forfeiture is where property is used in drug related activity. The property is part of the guilty party and innocence is irrelevant.
If there is an illegal action, but it cannot be proven that the action in question was responsible for the collection of the evidence, the evidence does not fall under the exclusionary rule by the doctrine of attenuation. If something like this has happened that the defense attorney is allowed to ask that the evidence is suppressed or held
Application 4: The damages that Resendez experiences are not physical. However, she is probably injured from an emotional and psychological perspective such as anxiety and degradation resulting from the defendant’s detention. Conclusion: Normally the court is unlikely to find Wal-Mart liable for the tort of false imprisonment because the third element does not apply; a reasonable justification was present against Resendez. The defendant was able to provide a valid reason for detaining the plaintiff by considering the peanuts as stolen property. Despite the fact that a justification was identifiable, Salinas has defense options available if the rule was proved otherwise.
In order to conduct a consent search, the law enforment offical's must have the permission of the person whose property is being searched, by granting consent the defendant waivies his or her Fourth Amendment right to unlawful search and seizure. In other words when the defendant gives his or her permission to the police to enter and search, than no search warrant is required. In most cases, the person may refuse to give consent; however, the law enforcement agent does not have to tell the person that consent is voluntary. Should any of the evidence obtained result in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove that the consent search was entirely voluntary and the person granting consent was not coerced. In addition, once a consent search has started, the person whose property is being searched may, at any time, revoke his or her consent.