* What are the legal requirements? * Didn’t break any laws, related to him applying company funds towards personal use even though his act was solely beneficial to himself alone. What are the ethical duties? * Maintain price-competitive markets will ensure that scares resources are used to optimally satisfy consumer needs. * Pareto Optimality wasn’t obtained because maximum benefits of most wanted goods and services produced at minimum cost of least wanted resources.
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
• What is judicial review? o Judicial review is when the U.S. Supreme court decides if a law, a statute or a bill is constitutional or not. • Please explain the role of judicial review in a case you recently decided. o Judicial review was required in on eof my recent cases as a company was violating consumers rights by using loopholes around getting clear consent from the consumer. • Please explain how you arrived at your decision, including different factors that affected it.
Larry uses an appeal to tradition as his reasoning. We do not qualify “that’s how it has always been done” as good reasoning yet Moore is quick to accept that answer. He does not really make an effort to challenge the response he was given, only questioning what political party Larry belonged to. By allowing this logical fallacy to be over looked, the viewer is even more curious for the answer. It may be a question too complicated to answer with complete concrete reasoning that Moore chooses to accept Godfried’s answer to avoid what may weaken his argument for universal healthcare.
It is not considered jury tampering because the prosecution and defense attorneys have the right to know the credibility of the person that would be deciding the fate of the defendant. Why or why not? The only way that I would see it being jury tampering is if after the jurors are chosen, someone starts threatening or trying to coerce the witness to not testify at the trial. Lawyers can also exercise a challenge for cause claiming the juror could not be
Business Research Misrepresentation In the court case United States v. Dokich, case No. 08-2850, appealed and sustained on July 21, 2010, Melvin Dokich defrauded many investors for millions. Dokich sold stock for a fraudulent company named Efoora Incorporated. Efoora made claims of conducting research for developing diagnostic tests for HIV, mad-cow disease, and blood glucose levels. Efoora’s claims of research and testing was feloniously supported, and staged, by inviting potential investors and customers to Efoora’s headquarters in Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
The court held that in the instant case the court had either found that these conditions were met or they were undisputed. Therefore, the communication was privileged and protected from disclosure. I believe the criteria set forth in RFF Family Partnership, LP v. Burns & Levinson is a very practical and rational one. It allows the lawyer to protect and serve his fiduciary duty to his client, and at the same time if a conflict should come up, it allows the lawyer to seek advice of a lawyer without the fear intimidation by way of disclosure. Such privileged communications lead to resolutions in resolving existing conflicts, and avoiding potential conflicts.
The jurors must not withhold any personal biases and must be completely honest in his or her answers. The next step in a jury trial is opening statements. Opening statements consist of both the defense and the prosecuting side to not present evidence in the case but what each side expects the evidence to show, and
The information in the article wasn’t just made up, general statements however. The author went to credible sources for his information. Among these sources included a law professor and top scholar on church-state conflicts named Douglas Laycock who was able to provide a professional and educated view on the likely actions that will be taken in order to protest the act including taking cases to the supreme court. Next, the author moves to the side of the debate that supports the birth control section in the act. By including statistics and reputable sources such as the National Women’s Law Center, the author emphasized the credibility of his information.
And here again, we see that if people listen to their conscience, and not to what society want them to believe is good, there will be some beneficial changes. In Civil disobedience, the author proved again that morality, as well as conscience plays an important role. Thoreau argued “It has been truly said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." By this, he too wanted to show that individual can take actions at any time without been influenced because of their own conscience of what is good or bad. By voicing out his conscience, individual will proved his uniqueness.