The Plaintiff in the case is the state of New Jersey. In a criminal case in NJ, the plaintiff if always the state,
The mens rea in the law the defendant is with violating his “Purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting...”.
The Actus Reus in the law the defendant is charged with violating is “does an act tending to obstruct or interfere with it physically”.
From the facts given in the article, I think the State can not prove mens rea. His purpose was not to disrupt a lawful meeting. In the article it states that the Defendant (Sanders) was standing in the back, and using a small hand held camera to video record the meeting. It wasn 't until police were called, that sanders began to argue.
From the facts given in the article, I do not believe that the State can prove actus reus. He did not commit an act tending to obstruct or interfere with the meeting physically. He was merely, standing in the back with a small video camera recording the questions and answers from the board of ed meeting.
The offense in this article is a disorderly persons offense. The name of the court that has jurisdiction over the case is municipal court. The potential punishment for the offense is up to $1,000 in fines and/or up to 6 months in jail, if the defendant were to be convicted.
The mens rea in the law us “knowingly or purposely”. The
…show more content…
Morton, Michael Morton spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife that he didn 't commit. The injustice that withholding evidence from a defendant can lead to is the principle that a person is innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. The reason this principle is violated is because beyond a reasonable doubt cannot be proven without all the evidence being presented. The jury can’t have doubt, if the one thing that would cause the doubt is omitted or hidden. Withholding evidence is such an injustice because it does not give the defense a one hundred percent shot at defending him or herself in
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Application/Analysis: While using a previous case DePasquale v. State 757.1988, that court held in this case that the defendant was not entrapped when he robbed that undercover female decoy. The court held that the officers committed no misconduct, they also put five factors that show that Miller intended to steal from the decoy. The fact that Mill asked Officer Leavitt for money first and after Leavitt told him no; Miller took it upon himself to take the money away. This act was enough to show Miller intentionally committed larceny, the court held that Miller was not
Facts: According to the case Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), an Ohio physician was being investigated for fraud. During the course of the investigation, it was necessary to interview two employees from his practice. Since the employees did not respond to a subpoena, a warrant was issued and the Sheriffs were sent out to the physician’s office where the employees also worked. Upon arrival, the Sheriffs were not allowed to enter the area where the two employees
During the court, there is no one who can help him to prove that he is not guilty and his friends seems to think that he is guilty for killing his wife. It is really tragic that he is guilty in a second without evidence, but his tone seems brave that he didn’t lose faith. “During this whole ordeal, he never fell apart,” Allison told me. “He wanted people to see him as strong. And I think in the end, that very trait worked against him.” shown the readers that Morton is confident because he knew the truth. When someone asked him questions about his wife’s death, he kept saying that he didn’t do it. He was waiting for the truth to come out because he endure all go pain, false accusations, and lost a family. He shown everyone that he will keep his faith and keep moving forward with confident.
(6) Right to a transcript of the proceedings: The Supreme Court did not rule upon the issue of defendant’s right to receive a transcript.
John smith, the accused, stood up in the courtroom and started yelling at the judge about what he thought of his innocence irrespective of the decision that the judge would make. He also cursed the prosecutor and kept quiet when his lawyer warned him of the negative consequences that would follow if he continued with the same behavior. Smith did not answer any question that the judge asked him. The prosecutor indicated that he had observed similar behavior when he interviewed him, in jail.
3. Was the inclusion of Terminiello's speech as a violation of the Chicago ordinance on disorderly conduct unconstitutional?
It was a 1986 case involving a seniors, Matthew Fraser, campaign speech at school that used “sexually suggestive comments and gestures” which created an uproar in the audience (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Fraser was suspended for several days and was not allowed to speak at commencement therefore he made the decision to sue the school district since he felt his First Amendment was violated (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). He was voted against seven to two because he used vulgar language which is not allowed in schools (Lusted, Marcia Amidon, and Gerald T. Thain 126). Because Fraser was not peaceful or non-vulgar like the Tinker case, he was not able to win the case against the Bethel School
Reasoning: The Court held that Mr. Faretta has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel. However, he may not complain later that he received inadequate assistance of and to legal counsel.
as decisive inferences complying with NJ law to validate his position, in contrast with the
The 6th Amendment guarantees a person accused of a crime compulsory process, the right to present witnesses in his defense. The importance of compulsory process is illustrated in the case Washington vs. Texas, where Jackie Washington was tried for murder. A state court ruled that Washington could not have an accomplice in the crime testify in his defense. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s refusal to allow the defendant a capable witness violated the 6th Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court overruled the court’s c...
In this essay we will discuss the process of legal research, writing, and analysis. The subject matter will be presented in a clear, concise and objective manner. The textbook that we will be referencing is "Gilbert Law Summaries: Legal Research, Writing, and Analysis" 10th ed, BarBri Group, 2006.
right is violated in any way it is most likely the violator would face criminal charges or
In "a view from the Bridge", justice and law are not presented as being synonymous.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.