Introduction/ Case: The Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) was investigating the tax return of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Church of Scientology. As part of their investigation, The IRS sought materials such as documents and tapes that were in possession by the District Court. Their purpose seeking these documents was due to the connection to California v. Armstrong, a case involving the Church of Scientology. In the Armstrong case, there were allegations by the Church that one of their former members had unlawfully obtained materials, such as documents and tapes regarding the Church’s activities. The I.R.S. issued summons to the court and were granted access to inspect those materials. The Church of Scientology acquired a restraining a restraining order against the I.R.S. , requiring them to retain all obtained materials back to the District Court. The I.R.S. decided to fight back through the District Court. Both parties made arguments regarding the scope of attorney-client privilege. The Church of Scientology fought for the continued protection of these documents under attorney-client privilege due to the fact that they believed that the IRS did not seek these documents and tapes out of goodwill.The I.R.S., however, believed that they should be granted access to the documents …show more content…
Rule Evid. 501, and we decline to adopt it as part of the developing federal common law of evidentiary privileges. We hold that in camera review may be used to determine whether allegedly privileged attorney-client communications fall within the crime-fraud exception. We further hold, however, that before a district court may engage in in camera review at the request of the party opposing the privilege, that party must present evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that in camera review may yield evidence that establishes the exception's
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
There is no dispute that Mr.Nanokeesic showed an attempt to prevent the police from finding the weapon, when he ran from the police and discarded his backpack. The backpack was found by the police and searched, without a warrant.
middle of paper ... ... Works Cited "Gideon v. Wainwright (No. 155).". legal information institute, LII. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web.
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
When a defendant asserts a mental status defense and supports it with evidence, the defendant waives the Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to evidence from a court ordered mental examination used to rebut the defense.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
Petitioner David Leon Riley was originally stopped for a traffic violation. The registration tags on the car that Riley was driving were currently expired. During the traffic stop the police officer also learned that Riley’s driver license was suspended. Police policy required the police officer to impound the vehicle because Riley’s license was suspended. Continuing to follow police policy a second police officer performed an inventory search of Riley’s car. The search led to Riley’s arrest for possession of two loaded handguns that were found under the hood of the car. The officer also proceeded to seize Riley’s cell phone which was located in his pocket. About two hours after the arrest a gang unit detective analyzed the content on Riley’s cell phone. As a result, Riley was tied to a shooting that had occurred several weeks early. In relation to the shooting Riley was charged with firing at an occupied vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
The Aston City Ordinance Leaves Open Ample Alternative Channels Of Communication Because It Only Applies In The Square Area And Only Applies To Verbal Solicitation.
This court case, one that impacted many people and the society at the time, began in Topeka, Kansas and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was actually two decisions, Brown I and Brown II, and five cases; all centered around racial segregation. The Supreme Court initially did not want to take on the case of racial segregation because of the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson. This previous case, between Homer Plessy and John Ferguson, had ruled that separate but equal facilities were constitutional. It set a precedent that the Supreme Court itself did not want to challenge. In summary, this case was established when Plessy, a man with a white appearance but had an African American background, opted for a seat in a “white” section of a car on the
Under First Amendment law, Dickey had the right to publish the article because TSU relied on state funds to function, thus making it a government entity. Even if the editorial was stopped because it criticized the Alabama government, the Free Press Clause protects citizens’ and media’s right to express themselves through written idea, opinions and dissemination of information without interference or censorship from the government. This case also enacted that public schools were not responsible for what their student media published and could not be threatened with state funding cuts, nor could public universities use state funding as means to censor student media. The court went on to add that the university did not have to hire Dickey as
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.
McLaughlin v. Heikkila is a case that involves Wilbert Heikklia and David Mc Laughlin who entered into an agreement involving eight parcels to be sold to Mr. Mc Laughlin by Mr. Heikklia. According to Cheeseman (2013), the facts of the case indicate that Mr. Mc Laughlin submitted offers to Mr. Heikklia for the purchase of three parcels and afterwards, McLaughlin submitted earnest-money checks and three printed purchase agreements to Heikklia. According to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, McLaughlin himself never signed any of the agreements. However, his wife did sign two of the agreements and she initiated the third agreement on September 14, 2003. Then, two days later on September 16, 2003 Heikklia made changes to two of the agreements by increasing the cost of the parcels, and he changed the closing dates on all three agreements, including add a reservation of mineral rights to all three (Minnesota Court of Appeals, 2005).
...ditional visits to the crime scene could cause a compromise if entered into evidence at trial.