Questions for Rambo: 1. Do you think the below is correct? I just wanted to make a short little tool to remember the rules based on your hoops. (It is a snippet of my chart since it was copying weird when I tried to move it over.) 2. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, I have in my notes that the privilege protects information obtained solely based on the communication. Is this an accurate statement? I know that the privilege does not apply to the facts contained within the communication but the confidential communication itself. I guess I am a little confused and just want to make sure my notes are correct. 3. Judicial Notice of Law 4. What is the Mansfield majority rule? I have in my notes that it is jurors cannot testify about anything regarding jury deliberations, but people who overheard what went on with the jury can testify. Is this correct? 5. In …show more content…
Did we talk about undisputed facts? I have my book notes but I don’t have any class notes on it. Should I review the Old Chief case? 7. What exactly is the difference between habit evidence and similar habit evidence? 8. I have in my notes that there are two types of sequence with regard to mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence. The first is “sequential” which means cross comes after direct. However, I don’t remember the second and I don’t seem to have it in my notes. I do vaguely remember that this might have to deal with asking leading question of perhaps a minor in order to avoid wasting time. I just want to make sure. 9. I have a question about the prior identification exemption from the hearsay rule. The fourth element is that generally, the testifying witness that is providing the identification does not have to be the declarant. The hypo I have in my notes is what a witness tells the police officer the she saw the defendant and then the police officer testifies in court. However, the declarant who identified the defendant still has to be in court and testifying,
3. Procedural History: This matter comes before the court on motions of defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, for new trial pursuant to Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for amended judgment. We have considered defendants' motions collectively and individually and conclude that neither a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, nor amended judgment is warranted. The evidence supports the jury's verdict.
There are quite a few specific factors that affect whether the minority can influence the majority’s opinion. For example, when Juror #9 becomes an ally of support for Juror #8 in his defection from the majority consensus. Although Juror #8 may have started with only one ally, gradually he gained support from other jury members. Another important factor in the power of minority influence (Myers, 298) is the consistency of the viewpoint. Juror #8 never ‘flip-flops’, proponents of the minority position must stand firm against the pressure to conform. Even when Juror #8 is taunted by his fellow jurors after voting not-guilty in the initial vote he stands firm on his position and resists the pressure to conform. Furthermore, high self-confidence and self-assurance improves the position of the minority. Juror #8 presented firm and forceful arguments without being overbearing. He justifies his not-guilty vote by saying, “I just think we owe him a few words, that's all.” In the film, there is also a point in the discussion where Juror #6 defends those who voted not-guilty from the bullying, shouting, and name-calling from the other jurors. Throughout the film, Juror #3 is a bully, a specific example of insulting nature it seen in the film when another not-guilty ballot is received and he attacks Juror #5. He shouts, “Brother, you really are somethin'. You sit here vote guilty like the rest of us, then some golden-voiced preacher starts tearing your poor heart out about some underprivileged kid, just couldn't help becoming a murderer, and you change your vote. Well, if that isn't the most sickening - *why don't you drop a quarter in his collection box?” his criticisms of the other jurors does not sway people to his side. In reality, when a minority gathers strength people feel freer to think outside the box without the fear
Shanahan, Sara Jane. "Another View: The Eroding Attorney-Client Privilege - NYTimes.com." NYTimes.com. The New York Times Company, 2 Nov. 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2011.
Why was the case brought? Give a detailed summary of the factors that led to the case (250 words).
Identify at least 4 primary sources and 4 secondary sources of law that the courts in those cases relied upon in making their decisions (a total of at least 8 sources for this question, not 8 sources from each case). Explain the court’s reason for relying on each of these sources.
the defendant is Leonard Peltier, chief of the Native American Reservation. This case can go both ways but due to lack of physical evidence and invalid testimonies Leonard Peltier is an innocent man. I will be arguing how Peltier is a innocent victim based on misconducted evidence, fundamental attribution error, observer bias and discriminatory decision making.
Was the plaintiff a victim of job discrimination, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also identified as the Fair Employment Practices Act? Therefore, in regards to this case, before a presiding can be delivered, there are a number of questions that must be answered.
...a unanimous vote of not guilty. The final scene takes place signifying the "adjourning stage". Two of the jurors, eight and three exchange the only character names mentioned during the film. The entire process of groupthink occurs in multiple ways that display its symptoms on individual behavior, emotions, and personal filters. These symptoms adversity affected the productivity throughout the juror's debate. In all, all twelve men came to an agreement but displayed group social psychological aspects.
...r case. You should include a table of contents, a table of authorities, a jurisdiction statement, questions or issues, a statement of the case, a summary of the argument, the argument, and a conclusion.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Abadinsky, Howard. Law and Justice: An Introduction to the American Legal System. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
The quietness and patience juror 8 displayed caused tension amongst the other jurors creating careful and adequate (Flouri & Fitsakis, 2007, p.453) deliberations. Juror 8 's circle of influence (Covey, 2013) directly influenced the other jurors’ circle of concern (Covey, 2013) when forcing them to question their thought process. Juror 8 chose a collaborative negotiation (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p. 63) method when deliberating with the other jurors immediately handing down guilty verdicts for the defendant. Furthermore, juror 8 used his ACES to help the other jurors cross the creek (Budjac Corvette, 2007, p.
Confidentiality is an ethical concern. The fundamental intent is to protect a client's right to privacy by ensuring that matters disclosed to a professional counselor not be relayed to others without the informed consent of the client. In discussing confidentiality, therapists also hope to encourage communication. Neither privacy nor confidentiality, however, are absolute rights, especially in the case of minors. There are fundamental exceptions, some involving ethical considerations and some involving legalities. Privileged communication is a legal concept. It addresses legal rights protecting clients from having their disclosures to certain professionals revealed during legal proceedings without their