The rule has been “that a person who receives immunity can be compelled to testify, no matter how personally embarrassing or humiliating testifying may be” (Davenport, 2006). Immunity falls into two categories: use and transactional. Use immunity is when “a witness may not be prosecuted based on grand jury testimony he or she provides but may be prosecuted based on evidence acquired independently from that testimony” (Neubauer, 2011, p. 467). When a defendant is granted use immunity, anything said to inv... ... middle of paper ... ...: Pearson Education, Inc. Kastigar v. United States - Case Background. (2009).
These two components are prominent in Balfour v Balfour since judicially it has been found that common law does not regulate promises between spouses so such mishaps are dismissed on a basis of arrangements made between the couple, as they are not authentic contracts. b) Immense planning and detail is put into legal sanction... ... middle of paper ... ...rom the construction site. The defendant did nothing less of the expectations and lived up to the standards, but it was the plaintiff who knocked into problems and caused a change in contract. Although the construction company did orally agree to maximize the monthly payments in order to aid with the gas price, he was not legally required to. Their contract binding was on in effect up until the written portion and the first arrangement since there was consideration present for both parties.
The exclusionary rule provides that any evidence obtained by the government in violation of the fourth amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures is not admissible in a criminal trial for the purpose of proving guilt (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014: 154). Thus meaning if a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable then it was in violation of the fourth Amendment. In addition a warrant must be issued and state what is to be searched and seized. The exclusionary rule is a remedy for violations of the fourth amendment, however; it was not derived from the fourth amendment (Walsh and Hemmens, 2014:154). Like the majority of rules in criminal law they begin with a series of cases that build upon something greater for example the exclusionary rule.
The traditional common law tool to withhold information from the parties to a court case is Public Interest Immunity (PII). PII is a principle of English common law under which the courts can grant a court order allowing one litigant to refrain from disclosing evidence to the other litigants where disclosure would be damaging to the public interest. The areas of public interest that may be protected by PII include: national security, international relations and the prevention and detection of crime. The categories of PII are not fixed, but the courts will not recognise new categories without clear and compelling evidence. An order that PII applies would usually be sought by the British Government to protect official secrets.
After a defendant has proven custody and interrogation, the two sub-elements required to establish Miranda; the defendant has established the necessary elements of compulsion without requiring any further proof. Smith v. State, 186 Md. App. 498, *517 (2009). Seeing that the Miranda protections should have been applied in this particular case the burden to proofing that the Miranda safeguards were implemented lies on the State.
The article is based around Judge Mary S. Scriven ruling that “no circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicionless drug testing at issue in this case could be constitutionally applied”. As a rebuttal, I would like to point out the obvious argument: mandatory drug testing for employment. It may be a private institute but whatever aspect you look at it with, it’s still an invasion of privacy. The government cannot invade ones privacy, but a private institute has every right to? The source itself states several rulings shot down the requirement as a law because it was in violation to the fourth amendment: illegal searching.
Is his communication still covered under attorney-client privilege? If a client voluntarily discloses communications normally covered under attorney-client privilege to an outside third party, the communication is no longer confidential, which mean it is not covered under attorney-client privilege. Therefore, courts across the country are having difficulties determining the limitations of the subject matter waiver. The purpose of the subject matter waiver doctrine is to “prevent partial or selective disclosure of favorable material while sequestering the unfavorable” (DiVito, Haussmann, & Fitzgerald 2013). In other words, litigants are unable to offensively utilize certain communications covered under attorney-client privilege, while also granting attorney-client privilege to remaining communications that block its discovery.
In respect to counseling mandated individuals, the ACA code delinates the ethical guidelines to follow, but the AMHCA code does not mention this obligation (ACA Code of Ethics, 2014, p. 4; AMHCA Code of Ethics, 2010). It is important for counselors as a profession as well as specifically mental health counselors to understand how to ethically address mandated clients. Furthermore, as the ACA code states, it is important to counselors to discuss with clients the reprocutions for refusing services due to being mandated for treatment (ACA Code of Ethics, 2014, p. 4). Interestingtly, the AMHCA code does not include ethical standards for terminating a supervisory relationship whereas the ACA code does (ACA Code of Ethics, 2014, p. 13; AMHCA Code of Ethics, 2010). Such that the ACA ethical code indicates that both parties have the right to terminate the relationship and the supervisor should make a refferal (ACA Code of Ethics, 2014, p. 13; AMHCA Code of Ethics, 2010).
Civil commitment cases mostly consist of family members of a mentally ill person who will try to commit the person in order to guarantee that they get help. The court system does not always care for civil commitment if the person is not showing direct danger or threats to them self or to others around them ("Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill", n.d). In this paper we will talk about the insanity statutes being used in the state of Georgia and how often the insanity defense is being used, and the major criticisms of the insanity defense. For many years the public has fought with the idea that a mentally ill person should not be held accountable for criminal crimes (Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O'Driscoll, C. 2007). In states Montana, Idaho, and Utah, does not consent for the defendant to plea an insanity defense.
The fact that neither of the parties have evidence of his statements is recognized. Since there is no proof should what they say be taken into account at all? On the other hand, there is the wife’s point of view. Should she be denied the right to have a child she may or may not have been planning? One must also know her financial stability.