More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical principles of confidentiality
Ethical principles of confidentiality
Ethical principles of confidentiality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethical principles of confidentiality
You are tasked with finding a case where a prosecutor committed an ethical violation. You are to then draft a paper detailing the conduct that was deemed wrongful and why. ? What type of punishment, if any was imposed? Do you agree with this?
Charles O. Bonet, a prosecutor told a co-defendant witness that charges against him would not be prosecuted if he took the stand and pled the Fifth Amendment when called to testify. The judge held an in hearing, during which co-defendant witness testified that the final deal was that Mr. Bonet would make the charges go away, if co-defendant witness took the stand and pleaded the Fifth Amendment. The jury found Mr. M guilty and the Court of Appeals upheld the decision. Mr. Bonet’s conduct ethic violation,
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
(3 points) What kind of defenses has the defendant raised? Or, if the case is over, what defenses did the defendant raise? If not clear in the article, what are the likely defenses?
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The rights of Dwight Dexter in the Fifth Amendment were violated. The amendment prevents the government from prosecuting people unfairly. Accused cannot be jailed or have their property taken without due process
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.
The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth-Amendment to many American citizens and law makers is considered abstract. The complexity of this concept can easily be traced back to its beginning in which it lacked an easily identifiable principle. Since its commencement in 1789 the United States Judicial system has had a hard time interpreting and translating this vague amendment. In many cases the courts have gone out of their way to protect the freedoms of the accused. The use of three major Supreme Court disputes will show the lengths these Justices have gone through, in order to preserve the rights and civil liberties of three criminals, who were accused of heinous crimes and in some cases were supposed to face up to a lifetime in federal prison.
This week I will be talking about a juvenile case that had allegedly violated a young man Fifth Amendment Rights, meaning that he was read his Miranda Rights after confessing to the crimes that he was accused of. The case I will be speaking about is the Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 124 S. Ct. 2140, 158 L. Ed. 2d 938 (2004), Micheal Alvarado, age 17 years old, was accused and convicted of second-degree murder and attempted robbery. But then after Mr. Alvarado confessed to his involvement he was then Mirandized after confessing to his involvement.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
During the interrogation of the teens a part of the fifth amendment was violated. The right that prohibited them from self incrimination was infringed upon. They were aggressively questioned to the point that admitting
The case involved Jerry Gault, who at 14 was given a seven-year sentence for a lewd phone call. The judge entered an order that Gerald was delinquent, mandating his incarceration in a residential facility until he turned 21. Arizona law prohibited appeal of juvenile cases.
When it comes to the vague ethics rules and finding effective ways to create a set of clearer ethical standards, legalistic approaches should be taken. Legalistic approaches began in the early 1900’s with the first set of ethics rules, the 1908 Canons. The 1908 Canons stated the primary duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice. The 1908 Canons method failed due to the lack of clarity concerning in depth what the prosecutor’s ethical obligations were. Another remarkable approach was the 1969 Model Rules, which made operational progress in defining the ethical duties of a prosecutor which established a set of rules, but yet and still failed to address the ethical obligation of seeking justice (American Bar Association, 1983). If these legalistic approaches continue to advance and make suitable amount of progress, less failure will occur and eventually the goal of seeking justice will be reached. An effective method to alleviate the vast discretionary authority with little to no transparency would be to use a prosecutor’s handbook (Joy 2006). Both the American Bar Association Prosecution Function Standards and National District Attorneys Association make recommendation of using a prosecutor’s handbook. These written standards bring more awareness to prosecutors allowing them to know the limits of their authority and provides guidance on how to properly exercise discretion. At the last point, inadequate remedies which create incentive to prosecutorial misconduct rather than deter it can be solved by reformation (Caldwell, 2013). Within trial courts, when a prosecutor has fraudulently obtained evidence, the trial court does have to option to exclude the evidence in which has been affected by misconduct. This approach typically does not result in anything further than a verbal reprimand. There are no types of
The Fifth amendment which was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and was ratified on December 15, 1791 states that “providing chiefly that no person be required to testify against himself or herself in a criminal case and that no person be subjected to a second trial for an offense for which he or she has been duly tried previously.” This means that the defendant does not have to testify why he or she is guilty or not guilty. This amendment also protects against double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is the prosecution of a person twice
Regarding whether or not an attorney should report a colleague and good friend for violating the law and severely breaching every aspect of professional conduct, it is the morally and legally correct choice to report the suspect to the proper law
innocent defendant to avoid massive risk by pleading guilty to a lesser offense” (Lafler v. Cooper,
The legal question in which the United States Supreme Court deliberated on was whether or not refusing to grant an indigent defendant counsel violated both the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the question the Supreme Court addressed was if failing to provide defense counsel to indigent defendants in state courts violated their fundamental constitutional rights. The Supreme Court discussed the constitutionality of extending the federal guarantee of providing defense counsel to indigent defendants to state criminal courts. As a result of these deliberations, the Supreme Court considered overturning court case Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 355.