C. A tippee can satisfy the knowledge requirement of insider trading with imputed knowledge. A tippee has knowledge of a tipper’s breach if the tippee is willfully blind to the breach. Criminal law has long provided that a person cannot avoid liability by hiding from facts that a reasonable person would know. Stone v. United States, 113 F.2d 70, 75 (6th Cir. 1940). Willful blindness is an alternative method of proving that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2068–69 (2011). Courts use the doctrine to prevent defendants from escaping liability by “deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence.” Id. A willfully blind defendant is just as culpable as a defendant who has actual knowledge. Id. This Court has held that two elements must be met for a defendant to be willfully blind. The first element is the “defendant …show more content…
The trial court found that DiNofrio had imputed knowledge of the breach and thus could be found willfully blind. R. 18. While, the court of appeals disagreed that willful blindness could be used in an insider trading case, it did not dispute the trial court’s finding that DiNofrio had imputed knowledge of the breach. R. 26–27. The evidence is sufficient to show that such imputed knowledge did exist. DiNofrio was at the same party as the original tipper and tippee, she knew they were cousins, and had seen the two of them talking that evening. R. 4–5. Cuzick provided DiNofrio confidential information about iTech, Cuzick told her it came from a good authority, and DiNofrio knew that the Director of Finance of iTech was at the party. R. 18. DiNofrio also may have known Bookwalter and talked to him that evening. R. 14. Together, this information and DiNofrio’s trades are sufficient to establish that DiNofrio was willfully blind to Abernathy’s
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
The following questions need to be answered to further the case pertaining Greene’s v. Jennifer Lawson:
There are certain standards that the courts use to determine competency. In order to find the accused competent, a court should find out by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant has remarkable ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational indulgence. The def...
In summation, is can be identified in this paper that eye witnesses do not play a constructive role within the criminal justice system. This can be seen through a thorough discussion of the many issues portrayed through this paper. To conclude Schmechel et al. (2006) reiterates that statements this paper has presented and discussed;
A dangerous silence envelopes the dark, drab courtroom. It is only punctuated with the hiss of an indecisive fluorescent lamp that seems to flirt with the idea of extinguishing itself completely. The lamp’s dim spectrum illuminates the pallid face of the plaintiff. His bespectacled eyes peer upwards from horn-rimmed glasses. Abruptly, a gruff voice pierces the quiet. It is a voice that wears impressive yet insipid suits. It is a voice that drinks black coffee and smokes generic cigarettes. When it speaks, it asks:
In this paper, I argue that courts should not treat civil parties in quasi-criminal cases the same as criminal defendants because character evidence can be misused as propensity character evidence. Part II of this paper discusses the bar against admitting character evidence. Part III deals with the split among courts as to whether this rule can apply in quasi-criminal cases. Part IV of this paper concludes that courts should resolve this split and refrain from treating civil parties in quasi-criminal cases as criminal defendants because the risk of prejudice does not support this use of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Reasoning: The responsibility of the prosecutor is to disclose information and evidence. If there is a promise being made by an attorney, then the information should be must be attributed to the government. The Supreme court had found that the prosecutor’s lacked to disclose evidence that was relevant to the defense. The prosecutor had also failed to correct the false evidence that had been presented at the
In 1992, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of arson murder, where a fire that was presumably started by him, killed his three children, and in 2004 he was put to death. Later, the Texas Forensic Science Commission, established in 2005, found that none of the evidence used while prosecuting Mr. Willingham was valid, and that the fire was in fact, accidental. Unfortunately, many cases like this have occurred in our nation’s history, where human error was to blame for convicting an innocent person. The American Justice system will only be as accurate as the science and technology that we have in place to remove human error during the process. The movie The Wrong Man is a perfect example of human error in the justice system convicting an innocent
Jurors may spot a witness that is trying to fool them, and diligent cross-examination can be an especially effective tool for ferreting out lies. But, jurors will almost certainly not spot a witness who believes their statements are the truth, but has fooled themselves. When testimony is plausible, how can jurors tell whether it is true or false? Jurors should know the factors that impact eyewitness reliability so that they can make more informed decisions about the trustworthiness of such testimony. Moreover, jurors routinely attribute far greater weight to eyewitness testimony than is prudent, making expert testimony on the issue all the more critical. Louisiana is currently one of two states to apply a per se bar on admitting expert testimony to inform jurors of factors related to eyewitness reliability. This paper contends that expert testimony regarding eyewitness reliability (expert eyewitness testimony) is an effective way of improving jury determinations and should be admissible in Louisiana at the discretion of trial court judges for that
Gentlemen of the jury, I would like to point out to you three pieces of
The U.S. Court systems in America base its whole judicial system around “blind justices” but is justice always blind? Since day one, justice has been portrayed as impartial. That the U.S. judicial system is represented by an elegant lady holding a set of scales in one hand and a sword in her other, while wearing a blindfold. She carries the balances symbolizing fairness and the sword symbolizing power and authority, and she wears the blindfold, symbolizing objective justice for all people, without preference of discrimination, regardless of identity, wealth, power, status, position, or circumstances. However, is this always the case? One point we can stress upon is eyewitness testimony or expert testimony. It is often said that the principle danger of adversary expertise is “motivational bias”. As expert witnesses are
"Rights of the Accused." : Supreme Court Cases. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. .
...’ 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.
In all Australian legal jurisdictions, children under the age of ten are considered to be too young to have criminal intent. That means, that children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Australia is the only region in the world to have uniform legal guidelines on the lower age limit of criminal responsibility. (Weijers, Grisso 2009 p.45). Having the presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to know the law completely, therefore not being able to have mens rea, is in my opinion, necessary in our criminal courts. This essay will look at the reasons for the necessary use of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as the Beijing rules, the convention
195 F.3d 645 (11th Cir. 1999), and United States v. Pearl, 89 F.Supp.2d 1237 (D.Utah 2000).