That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict. After a jury returns a verdict, the losing party may make a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a motion for judgment now withstanding the verdict. The judge is asked to hold that there were not legally sufficient grounds to support the jury’s verdict and to either overturn the entire verdict or a portion of it. Courts preferred post– verdict motions to pre—verdict motions because, if an appeals court reverses a post verdict motion, there is no need to redo the entire trial. Q: The jury believes the expert testimony presented for plaintiffs.
The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.
in Findlaw.com) and “sitting without a jury” a California Superior Court found him to be “in violation of the California Health and Safety Code, 1947, 11,500” (Findlaw). This conviction depended on the evidence of the “two capsules” that were allowed to be admitted over the objection of Rochin. Believing that his rights had been violated, Rochin appealed to the District Court of Appeal and was denied. Although there were revelations of various “violations of constitutional rights” (qtd. in Findlaw.com) during the obtainment of evidence, one of the three judges said he “felt bound by the decisions of his Supreme Court” (Findlaw) to uphold the conviction.
Ogden claimed that this was true only for goods, not navigation. Gibbons then sued Ogden for entry into the state and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. John Marshall ruled in favor of Gibbons, determining that it was within the federal government’s power to control navigation and that the regulation of “commerce” included laws of navigation. Conduction of interstate commerce was a power reserved to Congress, Marshall ruled. I believe that Marshall granted this case cert.
Holding: A vote of (9-0) in favor of Loving 1. Yes. Reasoning: Chief Justice Warren delivered the unanimous decision that the Virginia anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that even though the State showed that the statute punished both participants equally, it did not constitute “an invidious discrimination based upon race.” The Court states that at the very least, “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications… be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny’… and… they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination…” This requires that there be rigid scrutiny when the States drafts a statute that could infringe on “invidious discrimination,” and also requires that the State provide legitimate government interest. Finally, the Court shows
What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a unanimous versus a nonunanimous verdict? Which would result in the most fair (fairest) verdicts? Unanimous verdicts were required in the United States until 1972. In 1972, the Supreme Court re-examined the unanimous verdict requirement[1]. In their decision, the Court concluded that the Sixth Amendment[2], guaranteeing the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, does not also impose the requirement of a unanimous jury verdict.
Jury nullification was put into place by the founding fathers of this nation for a reason, to prevent governmental overreaching. Alexander Hamilton stated “it was the surest protection of the people’s liberties”. Juries rarely nullify irresponsibly, which is another exceptional reason for jury nullification to be a perfectly legitimate. Jury nullification was put in place as a sort of safety value it allows the jurors to hear the case and based on the facts use there own judgment to decide whether the laws are unjust. For example in the case of Sam Skinner, a AIDs patient was prosecuted for the illegal use of marijuana.
On March 19, 2001, Judicial Watch urged the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to reject the plea agreement under which Bill Clinton’s friend James T. Riady and the Lippo Bank escaped with what was for them a slap on the wrist for their serious violations of campaign finance laws and other crimes. The pleading submitted by Judicial Watch is a clear and comprehensive summary of those crimes. It makes a persuasive case that the punishment agreed to by the Reno Justice Department and approved by the Ashcroft Justice Department does not come close to fitting the crimes and should have been set aside. The media coverage of this miscarriage of justice has been confined to reporting the judge’s acceptance of the plea agreement ? a fine of $8.6
His defense attorney argued that the statute in which he had been indicted was unconstitutional. Since Wynehamer had legally purchased his liquors before the enactment of the statute, he was being denied his right to dispose of his property as he saw fit. The court disagreed and found the Wynehamer guilty. Wynehamer appealed the judgment, which was then upheld by the Supreme Court. The case was then sent to be reviewed by the court of
As soon as it was passed into law a multitude of appeals were lodged against it claiming it was unconstitutional, although to begin with proposition 8 was upheld by the courts as constitutional, for example Strauss v. Horton, eventually the Californian 9th circuit Court of appeals ruled it unconstitutional. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the lead judge in the case, released a statement saying "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex