Crown Bay Marina Case Summary

490 Words1 Page

Kelly Josepha Mala, Appellant v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. No. 10-4710. January 7,2013.

Facts Kelly Mala had been at the Crown Bay Marina in the Virgin Islands getting gas when he went inside and asked an attendant to look after his boat. When Mala returned the gasoline was overflowing and shortly after he pulled away, his boat exploded. Mala sued Crown Bay Marina, went to trial, and lost. He now states that because he is a pro se litigant he should have received extra assistance from the court. Mala also argues that the court wrongfully denied his request for a jury trial and incorrectly ruled on post trial motions. The court rejected his contentions and will affirm.

Issue Is Crown Bay Marina …show more content…

Regarding pro se litigants and whether they have a right to advice, McKaskle v. Wiggins represents the Supreme Courts decision that there are no laws requiring courts to provide legal advice to pro se parties. It also does not mention in the Constitution that judges need to do anything extra for them. Despite no requirements for the Court to give pro se litigants assistance, they still would deny his claim because he did not prove any evidence for what he would have done differently with the advice, and he could have easily gotten his hands on a manual from another court or the internet. The court decided it only had admiralty jurisdiction not diversity because both parties of the case were citizens of the Virgin Islands. The seventh amendment gives the right to a trial jury in suits of common law, but admiralty cases are not common law, meaning Mala did not have the right to a jury. Waring V. Clarke is a case that was responsible for preserving jury trials. The courts rejected Mala’s claim regarding a new trial and denied his motions because they felt there was no real reason to accept his

Show More
Related

  • Mallard Bay Drilling Case Study

    982 Words  | 2 Pages

    On April 9, 1997, Rig 52 that belonged to Mallard Bay Drilling was towed to a location in the territorial waters of Louisiana, where it drilled a well over two miles deep. After the well was almost complete an explosion occurred killing four of the crew and injuring several others. Seeing that this was a marine casualty in navigable U.S. waters, under existing regulations the United States Coast Guard responded. When the investigation was over the Coast Guard did not find any violations of their regulations and noted it was an uninspected vessel and the operator held an Operator Uninspected Passenger Vessel (OUPV) license. Soon after the incident the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) cited Mallard Bay Drilling for violations

    Read More

  • Hazelwood East High School Case Summary

    582 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.

    Read More

  • Gault V Us Case Summary

    863 Words  | 2 Pages

    (1) Based on case law from Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, the Supreme Court held that the essentials of due process must be followed. The first holding given by the Supreme Court involved the indirect issue of due process. The Supreme Court held that in juvenile court proceedings the juvenile must be treated fairly and be given the essentials of due process.

    Read More

  • Gideon vs. Wainwright

    402 Words  | 1 Pages

    This was a very controversial issue, because the court faced the decision of whether to go with the laws that the forefathers had come up with or grant people right to counsel so that the truth can be brought out. The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.

    Read More

  • United States v. Nixon

    367 Words  | 1 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • The 6th Amendment and Criminal Proceedings

    839 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this paper I’m going to discuss what is the 6th amendment right, the elements of ineffective counsel, how judges deem a person as ineffective counsel from an effective counsel, cases where defendants believed their counsel was ineffective and judges ruled them effective. I will also start by defining what is the 6th amendment right and stating the elements of an ineffective counsel. The 6th amendment is the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury if the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause if the accusation; to be confronted with the witness against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (U.S. Constitution). There were two elements to ineffective assistance of counsel: a defendant must prove that his or her trial attorney/ lawyer performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors the results of the proceeding would have been different (Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 1984).

    Read More

  • Law Enforcement and Miranda Warnings Case Analysis

    1070 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...e of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings. Especially in custodial interrogations when being questioned by law enforcement while in custody or deprived of freedom of action. The court made it very clear that the defendant has to be warned prior to any questioning so they fully understand they have the right to remain silent and the right to counsel being present. They also need to understand that if they cannot afford counsel one will be appointed to them by the courts before any questioning. The Supreme Court reversed the cases Miranda, Vignera, Westover and then affirmed the Stewart case in California.

    Read More

  • Law: Gideon Vs Wainright

    1994 Words  | 4 Pages

    The framers formed this country with one sole document, the Constitution, which they wrote with great wisdom and foresight. This bountiful wisdom arose from the unjust treatment of King George to which the colonists were subject. Among these violations of the colonists' rights were inequitable trials that made a mockery of justice. As a result, a fair trial of the accused was a right given to the citizens along with other equities that the framers instilled in every other facet of this country's government. These assurances of the citizens' rights stated in the bill of rights. In the Sixth Amendment, it is stated that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." A first reading of this phrase one might be think that this right, that which gives a person accused of a crime to have lawyers for his defense, is common knowledge being that it is among the most basic rights given to the citizenry of the public. However, the simple manner in which this amendment is phrased creates a "gray area", and subject to interpretation under different circumstances. The legitimacy of the right to mount a legal defense is further obscured by the Fourteenth Amendment which states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." As a result, many questions begin to arise which seek to determine the true right of the accused to the assistance of counsel. Should legal counsel be provided by the government if the accused lacks the funds to assemble a counsel for his defense? Or, on the other hand, does this amendment set the responsibility of assembling a defensive counsel on the accused even if he or she lacks the funds to do so? Also, do the states have the right to make their own legislation regarding the right of the indigent accused to have counsel appointed to them in the state trials, or does the Fourteenth Amendment prevent this? The Supreme Court was faced with answering these questions in the case of Gideon v. Wainwright.

    Read More

  • Is Flag Burning Protected by the First Amendment?

    2205 Words  | 5 Pages

    Rehnquist, William H., Brennan, William J. "A Casebook on the Law and Society: What Rights

    Read More

  • Gideon V. Wainwright Summary

    1131 Words  | 3 Pages

    Imagine getting a ticket and deciding not to pay the fine by the deadline. The court will issue a notice for you to pay for it or you will be charged for misdemeanor. You have the option to go to court and if you can’t afford a private lawyer, then the court will assign you a public defender, or a lawyer appointed by the court of no cost to you.Your right to have a lawyer and a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”).

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments

    838 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Escobedo V. Illinois case had captured the grand stage in 1966 for, a man named Danny Escobedo was denied his rights to obtain a lawyer during questioning by the Chicago Police Department. Escobedo was convicted for shooting and was taken to the police department for questioning. Escobedo had made numerous attempts trying to request a lawyer, but was not provided one violating his Sixth Amendment Rights: “The right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in their defense.” Unfortunately, Escobedo had confessed to the murdering which also violated the Fifth Amendment of “self-incrimination” being forced a confes...

    Read More

  • Essay On Des Moines Independent Community Schools

    579 Words  | 2 Pages

    Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.

    Read More

  • The Constitution: The Supreme Law Of The American Constitution

    1522 Words  | 4 Pages

    The power the Supreme Court has today stems from the case of Marbury v. Madison: a hearing

    Read More

  • Importance Of The Sixth Amendment

    1227 Words  | 3 Pages

    "Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority"(Maravillosa 1). These words said by Justice Byron White are the exact living dispute of the protection of the rights the United States Constitution and its Amendments promise us. The Sixth Amendment protects the rights of the people specifically in the courtroom and the conditions of law. The rights within the Sixth Amendment ensure the American people the rights of an impartial jury, the right to a lawyer, and demonstrate ability of the court system to change.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    602 Words  | 2 Pages

    This case had to do with an Ernest Miranda who raped a Patty McGee*. After extracting a written confession from the rapist about the situation, Miranda’s lawyer argued that it was not valid since the Phoenix Police Department failed to read Miranda his rights, also in violation of the Sixth Amendment which is the right to counsel. Some factors that helped support Miranda’s arguments were that the suspect had requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with a lawyer; the suspect had not been effectively warned about his right to remain silent; and an incriminating statement must have been given by the suspect. The author of the Arizona court’s decision, former U.S. Senator and Arizona governor Ernest W. McFarland, said that Miranda had not requested a lawyer at the time of his detention and therefore was not entitled to the protections offered by such thins as in the Escobedo vs. Illinois case.

    Read More

More about Crown Bay Marina Case Summary

Open Document