Defendant Course Works Samples For Students

The Law

- Since this incident occurred due to negligence and no prior contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant the Law of Tort becomes applicable.
- As per established norms in the Law the plaintiff must be able to prove that
- Defendant owed a duty of care
- Defendant breached that duty
- There was damage as a result
- If the three points are proven by the plaintiff, then following options of defence are open namely any one of the following: Consent, Contributory Negligence, Necessity or Illegality. The Limitation Act (1980) sets a period of ...

CITE: USA Today, Oct. 2, 2013, page 34.

FACTS: Katherine Jackson, mother to Michael Jackson brought a suit on negligence against AEG Live LLC. AEG Live LLC was a concert promotion company that produced Jackson’s comeback concerts. Katherine argued that AEG Live LLC acted negligently in hiring the physician responsible for administering the medication that killed Michael. Conrad Murray, the physician, was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in November 2011 for administering a propofol overdose that lead to the death of the singer.

In their negligence claim, the family sought to show that AEG Live LLC was responsible for hiring the ...

Intention and knowledge of a crime cannot be of the same type of mens-rea. For example, murder and culpable homicide are intentional and knowledge based respectively. The intention based mens rea places mental element of murder foremost as an intention to cause death. At a lesser degree is an intention to cause a specific bodily injury which the offender knows will cause death of the victim. This is almost the same as the mental element for murder as the offender knowingly causes the bodily injury that it can cause death. As such, the offender is liable to be convicted for murder. Next ...

In the case of Nova Mink v Trans Canada Airlines , the High Court ruled that airplanes that are governed by the Air Traffic Rules which are ruled by competent authority shall be subject to common law duties of care, unless otherwise excluded by legislation that expressly provides for an exclusion. This is regardless of the fact that they cover a wider range of mobility, both in vertical and horizontal settings. In the case of aeroplanes, they cannot be analogous to railways since the latter is excused when operating in accordance with statutory rules including accidents which occurred in level crossings ...

Abstract

In Ross v. Moffitt (1974), it was held by the U.S. Supreme Court that the indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to the right of an appointed counsel at State’s cost as the indigent defendant is already entitled to the right of the appointed counsel at the courts below i.e., the trial court and first court of appeal where a counsel’s advise and presence is required at the various stages of trial and to point out to the Appellate court the errors committed by the court below. What is more important is the due process clause rather than ...

Introduction

With respect to law of torts, any action carried out intentionally and that results in causing either physical or emotional injury to another person qualifies as an intentional tort. On the other hand, negligence tort entails causing harm or injury to a third party as a result of personal carelessness. According to Arthur and Barner (2007), civil law requires that every individual conduct his or her activities in a manner that induces no harm to surrounding persons. In this context, the need to conduct one’s affairs in a safe manner constitutes the element of duty. Failure to act safely and within expected ...

A pretrial motion is a meeting that occurs between the accused person, the plaintiff, the layers and the judge. The pretrial motions are conducted after the confirmation that a case has to proceed to trial (Berry, 1989) .Pre trial motions deal with issues that affect will affect the outcome of a case. Some of the issues are;

Avenue change-Parties to a criminal case can request for avenue change. Factors such as publicity and security of an accused person may influence the court to order for the change of a trial location.

Evidence exclusion-Any party to a case can request a court to exclude evidence that they ...

Discussion 1

Psychological assessment is an extremely vital exercise for an individual or the community at large. It ensures that the courts give a fair ruling. There are different issues that could arise when conducting a psychological assessment in the community. This paper discusses issues that could arise when carrying out an assessment.

Competency of an individual is substantial in the court (Adler, 2004). The psychologist evaluates the mind of an individual and states if the defendant can face trial. In case the defendant is incompetent, the psychologist writes to the court to request time to prepare the defendant for legal proceedings. Additionally, ...

The prosecutors and police have the common interest cut down crime, arrest criminals and offer fast, sure and particular punishment. Therefore, prosecutors and police are expected to have open communication to facilitate their functions. The two organizations have different responsibilities, but exhibit conflicting views over certain case dispositions. However, their conflicts are considered as evidence for the effective functioning of checks and balances mechanism of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the police should accommodate such checks from prosecutors while prosecutors are expected to provide supervisory functions together with vivid and reasonable explanations. The police are held responsible for their ...

Introduction

Crime refers to wrong actions that cause injury to people or cause interference of their lives. However, these actions that interfere with other people lives cannot be classified only as a crime, but also as a tort. A tort is a wrongful action that causes injury or interferes with the other person life or property.

In the Pahler case, the court did not use the same reasoning used in Bailey vs. Eminem case. Pahler committed a crime by shooting and murdering actress Lana Clarkson. Crime can be defined as, wrongful act identified by a state as a crime, leading to hearing criminal case in the ...

A syndrome relates to a blend of signs and symptoms that show that a person is suffering from a particular ailment, disease or disorder. A syndrome based defense is thus where a defendant uses an ailment or disorder to escape criminal liability (Schmalleger et. al, 2010). In such case, though they admit doing the offence, they argue that either they lacked criminal intent or that the action was involuntary. An important aspect of a syndrome based defense is that the disease complained of must either be a disease of the mind or affect the mind.

Syndromes may thus be regarded as excuses as they operate ...

Once a complaint and summons have been served on the defendant, settlement negotiations must stop.

In a federal court action, a general denial challenges the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
If the defendant has an affirmative defense to a claim, it must be alleged in the answer or it may be waived.

A copy of the answer must be personally served on the plaintiff.

A cross-claim is generally allowed when a claim by one defendant against another named defendant arises out of the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the complaint.

A third-party complaint, unlike the cross-claim and counterclaim, is a separate pleading.

All allegations in a counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint are deemed denied and need not be responded to.
If a defendant in a lawsuit fails to object to the subject matter of the court prior ...

Plea bargaining occurs when the prosecuting attorney and the defendant agree that the accused should accept they are guilty in a specific charge and the attorney to reduce the charges or the sentence they had requested the jury. It is necessary to note that plea bargaining only applies in criminal cases. As a result of a plea bargain, the accused accepts guilt in a lesser charge than the one they had been accused of. For example, a plea bargain would result in the defendant pleading guilty to manslaughter when in the first instance they had been accused of murder. In return for the defendant’ ...

Furman v. Georgia

In the above case, the U.S. Supreme Court found for the first time that the death penalty in this case was unconstitutional. The petitioner William Henry Furman was committing a burglary in a home when his weapon accidentally killed a resident therein. Georgia court convicted Furman for murder and awarded death sentence. Along with this, two other cases Jackson v Georgia and Branch v Texas that awarded death sentence for rape were decided by the Supreme Court on the question whether death sentence in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment violating Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ...

Question 1

Are there possible criminal aspects of HIV/AIDS? Consider the case law presented in your textbook and elsewhere, and explain. Please provide specific examples.

The intentional spread of HIV is considered a criminal act. Pozgar (2012, p. 362) describes the case of an inmate who knew that he was infected with both HIV and the hepatitis virus. He was also informed of the ways that he can transmit the infection to others. He bit two correctional officers knowing that he can possibly infect them in this way. He was consequently charged with assault and battery. In State of Louisiana v. Schmidt, ...

The court that I visited was the Boston Municipal Court which was located at the Government Center T stop on the Green Line. The name of the judge was Honorable Charles R. Johnson. The hearing that I attended was a criminal case involving theft. The defendant was present. He was about 30 years of age and was charged of stealing the money from a grocery store. There was a witness who testified before the court and was the cashier during the time the defendant stole the money. The cashier was a 25 year old girl who was on duty when the crime took ...

Question 1

Jurisdiction is a term used to define the powers of a court. Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of a given court to give judgments against a particular defendant while subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to hear and make judgments on a particular type of case (Chao and Christine, 9). Parties to a contract have considerable freedom in formulating terms of a contract. This includes resolution of disputes arising from the contract. Minimum contract law can be used to determine if a court in one state has personal jurisdiction over a defendant from another state. The relevance of the minimum contract rule is that it ...

Abstract

In the case of Patsy Slone vs. Dollar Inn, the case at hand involves the plaintiff suing the defendant for negligence that caused her an emotional distress on the fear that she could be having the AIDS virus after she was pierced by a needle while being a guest at the defendant’s establishment. This requires a compensation for damage even without evidence that the plaintiff actually contracted the virus. It is evident from the claim that although she did not have the virus, she had suffered greatly from the trauma and fear that she might have contracted the virus. As a result ...

Discussion 1

Judicial review of competency or reasonability in regard to defendant mens rea (mental state) at issue in case involves four general rule elements where 1) waiver of rights is determined accord to the 2) capacity of a party to plea and 2) stand trial, the criteria to 4) defense. Defendants “pleading not guilty by reason of insanity” forsake criminal responsibility in exchange for state mental health incarceration (Meyer & Weaver, 2006).

In the cases State v. Bates and State v. Stiller no assignment of incompetency should occur. If temporary insanity is determined to be in question, hospital ...

Rob and Bunny Sherman want to file a suit against the Church of the Divine Light. They allege that one year ago, their 15 year old son called Rob Jr., was coerced into staying in the church. He was threatened by being told that if he left, he would be thrown into the eternal fires of hell. He was brainwashed and began believing that the church was his new family. He was also told to demand money from his parents to cater for his upkeep. Rob Jr. stayed in the church for a period of approximately six months. Rob Sr. and ...

The ‘exclusionary rule’ is a rule based on the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution which prohibits unlawful search and seizure. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence seized in violation of the terms of the Fourth Amendment is not admissible in court and should be excluded at trial; it is an attempt to deter police misconduct and prevent them from usurping the constitutional rights of citizens. It is a rule which was originally expressed in Week v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914); in 1961 the Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states in the case ...

The case sits within the domain of evidence as the procedural law in application and of course the substantive law remains criminal law. However, as to the defence of the three, this paper shall give advice within the law of evidence and highlight the evidential issues that should be brought forward in the defence of each of three accused persons. It should be appreciated that the evidential issues shall be substantially guided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. However, in nexus to this Act, the evidential issues shall also be guided by the wider body of ...

Justification is a defense raised where a defendant admits to committing the crime but states that circumstances justified their actions (Schmalleger et. al, 2010). This defense places focus on the character of the behavior in the circumstances. Essentially, it supposes conduct otherwise criminal to be legally acceptable and avert punishment. In simple terms, the defendant shows that in the circumstances they had no choice but to do the act which they have been called to answer to.

On the other hand, excuse is a defense raised where the defendant acknowledges committing the crime but states that they had no criminal intent thus ...

The level of guilt associated with a crime can often differ according as to who makes that decision: the prosecutor, jury, or judge. The degree of guilt determines the criminal penalty the defendant can be sentenced with.

In the United States, crimes have a very narrow definition; therefore, a person charged with a crime knows exactly what they are being charged with, and which elements the prosecutor must prove for him to be found guilty. The defendant also knows what defenses he can use to prove his innocence. Furthermore, should the defendant be found guilty of a crime, any criminal penalty imposed on the ...

Introduction

Under criminal law, false arrest occurs when one party holds another wrongfully and takes them to custody against their will. This can be committed by both law enforcement agencies and private persons. It is a crime to restrict wrongfully or limit the personal freedom of another person against their consent (Rix, 1995). Anyone doing this commits a crime of false imprisonment. The remedies available to the victim of false imprisonment depend on the harm caused. In most cases, however, the victims have the remedy of damages.

There is no doubt that Dziuma was falsely arrested, and he was never given a chance ...

a.
In the case presented, plea-bargaining agreement is important to the justice system because it de-clogs the cases courts need to address. It helps the court focus their limited resources in more important cases. Siegel, Schmalleger& Worrall (2011) corresponds to a legal term that is considered as a comprise, that is vital for the judicial function. It is an agreement between the prosecutor and defendant parties, where the defendant pleads guilty to several aspects of the charges. The defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge or charges and, as a result, the other aspects of the charges will be dismissed ( ...

Introduction

Ideally the investigating officer clearly violated the Brady Rule. The officer would instead have had relied on the fourth witness, a situation that would provide more and reliable information regarding the suspect. It will be realized any information obtained from witnesses provided that they are mentally fit and unbiased should actually be relied on since people may have differing views concerning an event.

Studies extend to reveal that the Brady Rule requires all prosecutors to reveal materially exculpatory evidence within the possession of the government to the defense. Generally, the evidence that the prosecutor is actually required to reveal with ...

Tim advertised that he was selling his Porch Short Boxer car in the newspaper to which the rogue later responded by visiting him. The advertisement by Tim is merely an invitation to treat which essentially paves the way for submission of offers to which Tim is free to accept or reject. This was the case in Partridge v Crittenden where Lord Parker CJ made a comment to the effect that if an advertisement were to be regarded as an offer, advertisers would be faced with a situation where they are under an obligation to sell the advertised goods to everyone who ...

Business Law Questions

Business Law Questions

This is the most suitable theory for the partners and the breach of contract. The breach of warranty highlights the damages which are available to the disappointed buyer when the specific seller has breached the article which explicitly stipulates the qualitative warranties. This implies that any buyer who unconditionally allows products that are nonconforming and who also follow the other conditions before he/she recovers the goods has the right to claim warranty.

Consequently, a breach of contract claim exists when the seller fails even to deliver the products when the need arise. This implies that in order ...

The main warranty theory which is best suited for the partners is the breach of warranty theory and the breach of contract. The breach of warranty highlights the damages which are available to the disappointed buyer when the specific seller has breached the article which explicitly stipulates the qualitative warranties. Therefore any buyer who has allowed nonconforming products and follows the other conditions prior to his or her to recover the goods has the right to claim warranty.

On the other hand a breach of contract claim exists when the seller fails even to deliver the products when the need ...

As a general rule, top-level answers should be a minimum of one paragraph of moderate length. Expect this to be a minimum of 150 words, usually requiring 10 or more sentences. Top-level posts less than 150 words will not be considered for full credit. Opinions are great and should be included! However, when possible, please support any opinion in the discussion with factual information or theory of substantial weight taken from some quality source or sources. For these top-posts you should avoid more than two sentences of direct quotes from any source. For the remainder of the post you should include a combination ...

The first harmful crimes are the extortion and robbery. In extortion, the defendant takes property from victim through force and threats. Robberies alter from extortion since the property taken against the victim consents and will, while in the extortion victims are unwillingly to submit their property or money. The nature of the threat for robberies distinguish with that of extortion is by limitation of the immediate physical harm to the victim while extortion, on the other hand, includes great range of threats. In robbery, these threats put the victim in fear of what about to happen unlike the extortion. ...

- Competence to stand trial demands that a defendant understands the purpose and nature of the legal proceedings against him and posses the ability to cooperate effectively with counsel in his defense. In order to understand the proceedings, a defendant must be in a position to comprehend the charges pressed against him. In addition, he must show some level of understanding of the courtroom procedures and the roles of the participants in the proceeding. A defendant must be able to plan a legal strategy, to recall and relate relevant events and facts, including actions and motives at the time of the offense, and ...

Abstract

This paper gives an insight to the classification of crimes. It also establishes the employment of doctrines such as Mala Prohibita, Mala in Se, Mens Rea, and strict liability in classifying such crimes. Within the paper, two laws are discussed and analysed as per these doctrines to give a clear picture and distinction of the doctrines.

Introduction

Classification of crime emphasizes the frequently ignored realism that every criminal act differentiates itself. For instance, contract homicide is relatively perceptibly unlike sexual homicide. Therefore, Crime-deciphering deliberations compel investigators to realize the disparities between crimes consistent with the criminal’s setting, the crime scene ...

The rapid technological change, shifting priorities and the need to have equal societies have led to sectorial and process reforms. Processes like voting are becoming simpler and simple day by day. Previous methods of carrying out things are being done away with and people are constantly embracing modern technologies. However, on given occasions, the use of these technologies might be against what the constitution demands. Crazytown city in Texas has proposed two radical reforms which are aimed at improving the processes of its council elections. The first reform, which is the accepting of votes to be cast via smart ...

- Identify and discuss the various functions of law. Why are these functions important from a business’s or corporate perspective? Provide examples

The law is defined as a set of rules that governs a society. The rules are in most cases enforced by threat of penalty. In essence, the law helps in regulations which help in governing the conduct handling disputes and dealing with criminal activities. The law performs numerous roles in both the society and in the business world. These roles are classified into three broad sections which include the criminal and civil law, Substantive and Procedural Law and public and private Law.

Criminal and civil law

This law enables the public, government authorities prosecute the public commitment of crimes. On the other hand, the civil ...

Brown versus Board of Education was a landmark case in the United States Supreme Court. The case had a very great impact on the personal rights of individuals as will be fructified in the evaluation.

- Basic Information

The title of the case was Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al. The case number was 347 U.S. 483.

- Plaintiff

The plaintiffs in the case were Oliver Brown, et al.

- Defendant

The defendant in the case was the Board of Education of Topeka, et al.

The case Oliver Brown, et al. v. Board of Education ...

The number of cases involving mental incompetence has been increasing within the U.S. during recent years. According to a 2008 article from USA Today, “Legal analysts attribute the increase to a lack of mental health care, judges’ increased openness to such claims and legal strategies by defendants to avoid harsh punishment” (Johnson & Seaman, 2008).

It would make sense that more criminals would want to use the defense of mental incompetence, simply because of the fact that if they are found to be incompetent to stand trial, they are then sent to a mental health facility to be treated – if ...

The term de minimis is an abbreviated form of a Latin term “de minimis non curat lex” which loosely states that the law does not care for small things. It refers to the legal doctrine where a court adjudicating over a matter refuses to be drawn into trivial matters or to consider petty matters. This common law concept was expressed in the English decision of the “Reward” in the year 1818 and also restated by Justice Robert Seigmann of the Illinois Appeal Court in the case of People v Durham.In a law suit coming for adjudication, the court applies this doctrine ...

Introduction

This paper explains how the courts in California are organized, particularly the Superior Courts system, and describes the method of determining a defendant’s bail, as well as considering the fairness of that method.

Description of the Superior Court System

The California Supreme Court is the highest court, supported by appeal courts and by a system of superior courts in each county, which have jurisdiction over both civil and criminal cases. In 2001, all 58 California counties merged their municipal and superior courts into a unified superior court per county. Overall, there are 400 superior courts locations, overseen by almost 1,500 judges. The superior courts also hear ...

Procedure and Facts

The two plaintiffs, who were minors, and their parents, commenced liability proceedings against the defendant, which was a pharmaceutical company. The plaintiffs were born with limb defects which they contended was not natural but rather by their mother’s use of Benedictin, a drug manufactured by the defendants. The claim was lodged at the Ninth Circuit court. The arguments from the opposing parties in the case elucidated differing opinions as to the more just, appropriate and reliable criteria for the admissibility of scientific evidence available. There existed an earlier common law rule, the Frye rule, which held scientific evidence must be ...

There are several issues of law that are presented in the case scenario involving Little Jimmy O’Leary and Sally Johnson. The main issue is what’s known as a conflict of laws. Conflict of Laws is the legal process of determining the relevant courts that have jurisdiction over a case at hand, and also determining the appropriate laws that the court should apply in its decision over a case. In the present scenario Mr. O’Leary, domiciled in Alabama got into an auto accident in Florida with Ms. Johnson, domiciled in New York. Both parties owned homes in Florida. Mr. O’ ...

Introduction

The trial of OJ Simpson is one of the phenomenological trials in history. The case became the most publicized trial in the history of the US, and the longest ever tried in the state of California. There have been a nu8mber of reviews regarding the trial, some of which have involved the role of the media in covering the case, with some arguing that the media overstepped its ethical mandate in so doing. The purpose of this paper, therefore, shall be to analyze the background of events surrounding the case, and the role that the media played in airing the ...

Ramzi Yousef, the first defendant, had the intent and committed the act of terrorism. He visited Manila under an impersonation of somebody else effectively conniving in attempts to disguise himself. The defendant and his group had the plan to attack United States Airliners. They intended to execute this plan employing bombs that were to be placed in aboard twelve United States Airliners commuting the United States Southeast Asia routes. The total number of accomplices were four making the group five for the final execution involving placement of bombs. According to the arrangements, the conspirators were to each board the ...

Psychology Questions

PSYCHOLOGY

1.Define prosocial behavior
The activity of helping or being of benefit to someone without having a particular goal to achieve rather than just to help. This view mostly on the consequences of such actions.

The act of doing things just to help but not under the obligation to do so. It focuses more on the desire to just help I.e. more of the actions of helping than the consequences of the acations.

Helping behavior

This is the tendency to always show the altrusic activities

2. .Prosocial behavior as inborn

Is believed that prosocial behavior can be transmitted in genes so ...

Section One: Criminal Justice System

The criminal justice system is an extremely essential part of government. It is the main body tasked with ensuring that justice, law and order are part of the society. These are essential elements of any society that aspires to ensure continuous growth and development. It is only by having competent, effective and efficient criminal justice system and institution that are not only trusted by the citizens of a country, but also by citizens of other nations that a country will realize its potential. The economy, security, agriculture, industrialization, commerce and trade and all other important sectors of life are extremely dependent ...

The law of property act of 1925 is among the Acts that were designed as part of the integrated legislative program initiated by Lord Chancellor Lord Birkenhead between the year 1921 and 1925 (Beale Jr. 1907). This piece of legislation primarily concerns itself with the transfer of property. In law, the word property is synonymous with the word land. There are many reasons that explain why land is the most fundamental kind of property in society. The provisions relating to the law of property are principally concerned with the transactions on matters of land, most prominently leases and deeds. ...

In breach of a real estate contract, the law provides several ways through which the aggrieved party can seek retribution. These avenues include money damages, specific performance, and recession. It is also essential to note that the aggrieved party can also use the liquidated damages. However, in all the scenarios mentioned above, it is the duty of the aggrieved party to prove that the defendant breached the contract by failing to perform their obligations as indicated in the contract.

Money Damages

Scholars state that this remedy is based on the assumption that, in regard to money, the plaintiff has to be placed ...

In the game theory, it is assumed that there are several players who are rational. They are interested in their gain in the entire process and the choices they make are geared towards their self-fulfillment. The classical example of the game theory is the prisoner’s dilemma. Two prisoners are held by security officials for a serious crime. There is no judicial evidence. Their conviction is based on both or either of the prisoners confessing to the crime. If one confesses, he gets immunity from prosecution while the other prisoner is jailed for a long time. If they both confess, they ...

Introduction

A trial by jury or jury trial is a legal process in which a jury either makes findings or decision of fact which are then applied by a judge. It is distinguished from a bench trial, whereby a group of judges or a judge make all the verdicts. The jury trials are utilized in a substantial share of grave criminal cases in all common law legal methods and lay judges or juries have be incorporated into legal systems of many civil law nations for criminal cases. Only the Canada and the U.S. make practical application of trials in a wide diversity of non-criminal cases. Most common law ...