Abel Fields Case Analysis

Abel Fields was convicted for bank robbery along with two other men. While two men pled guilty, the respondent decided to plead innocent. Ehle then agreed to testify against Fields at the trial, to further incriminate him. From there, the Respondent called Mills to the stand. Although Mills wasn't involved with the robbery, he had spent time with Ehle in prison. Mills stated that while in prison, Ehle admitted that he would falsely testify against Fields for favorable treatment. The prosecution brought Ehle back to the stand to testify against Mills’ Credibility. Ehle stated that they all had belonged to an Aryan Brotherhood gang and they had all sworn that they would lie to help out a fellow gang member. The trial court allowed this testimony. In addition to his statement, he included that if he were to disclose and/or accuse another member of any crime could have an outcome of possible death.

United Stated trial, I, serving as a Supreme Court Justice, have decided that Fields has been correctly convicted of his crime. A precedent that’s able to further support my decision goes back to the case of the New York Times v. Sullivan, which demonstrates the right to make false statements. This precedent has helped keep past cases consistent, liable, and precise. Within this certain case, the First Amendment comes in hand with protecting the publication of all statements, even false ones. Furthermore, Mills’ statement of Ehle admitting that he would falsely testify against Fields for favorable treatment was legal. The US Supreme Court had found evidence of the men’s association with the Aryan Brotherhood gang, which became an abundant source of evidence for Mills' possible bias against the respondent’s case. Therefore, Mills' membership in the gang is not exactly proof that he is lying, but considerable evidence that he is more plausible to lie. Basically, this precedent has shown that Fields has been rightfully prosecuted and