Lyons Case Study

Ruby Lopez EDSE 5309-160 Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley Background: Dispositive Facts of the Case Amy Rowley, whom herself and both parents were deaf, was enrolled in a public school in the state of New York for the start of her education. Prior to her first year in public school, kindergarten, her parents met for an IEP development. The IEP provided Rowley with a sign-language interpreter who would be present with her in the classroom. After being in the classroom with the sign-language interpreter, it was reported that the interpreter’s services were not needed by Rowley. For the continuation of her kindergarten

The district court judge said that since Rowley lacked a sign language interpreter, she does not understands all of what goes on in class than she could if she were not deaf. Therefore Amy is not learning as much as she would without her handicap. The judge said that this means she was not receiving a free appropriate public education that she was entitled to. Wrights Law (1982). Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Amy Rowley (458 U. S. 176).

Jurors should not know anything about a specific case and not follow public affairs and read the news (Doc F). When a person is selected to be part of a jury, they have to say an oath stating that they will not use their emotions to determine the verdict of a trial. If a juror is caught using their emotions, they will be fined for a crime called perjury. Since there are twelve people in a jury, there is a variation of opinions when the jury decides a verdict. But, a judge is more professional and knows how to only use the evidence provided and be less biased.

On the 14th of October 2011, Mr Rayney had submitted an application for a trial which only involved a judge without a jury present. This was due Mr. Rayney assuming that a strong bias had been manifested pre-trial as a result of the subjective publicity revolving around the death of his wife, Corryn(The Conversation, 2012). Therefore, the jury and any member of the public would already have preconceived views in favour of Mr Rayney being guilty of murdering his wife. The trial was successful for Mr Rayney where he was acquitted of murdering his wife. Similarly, this issue is somewhat common as it had also occurred in the case Evans v The State of Western Australia [2011] WASCA 182, in which both appellants had made appeals after being convicted for murder.

Although she ended up spending months in jail, the arguments against her conviction on the legal terms of a change in jury member were not only heard out, but accepted, resulting in her freedom. (122). Although she faced unideal consequences under the law, as the jail time and fear of execution were certainly detrimental, they were far less severe than those that would have been expected. Compared to other women accused in other areas, Disborough’s legal consequences were notably light. She did, however, face more harsh consequences from her peers and fellow citizens.

The Victoria Government Department of Human Services (2012) stated “the freedom to make decisions which affect our lives is a fundamental right that each of us should enjoy”. The decisions we make in our lives represent who we are and how we want to be perceived by the world – whilst taking into consideration our own morals, beliefs and goals. Supported decision-making (SDM) is a process by which “a third-party assists or helps and individual with an intellectual or cognitive disability to make a legally enforceable decision for oneself” (Kohn & Blumenthal, 2013). May & Rea (2014) stated that “supported decision-making assumes that all people, regardless of their ability or disability, have some capacity to be involved in decision making”.

One of the most important benefits, however, is the reduced risk of a compromise verdict. The overall benefit of majority verdicts suit the circumstances for all but the commonwealth laws. (Knox 2002) “When a lone ratbag juror can abort a trial, the time-honoured idea of the unanimous verdict starts to look decidedly unsound.” In the book ‘Secrets of the Jury Room’ Knox broadcasts the ideals of jurors acting selflessly and complains about rogue jurors messing up a trial.

The jury consisted of 12 Men, young and old, from different backgrounds and cultures, with different social position, different thinking but one thing in common- none of them had

Juror 2: He is an introvert who works as a bank clerk. Meek and high in agreeableness, he cannot hold an opinion of his own and adopts the opinion of the last person who has spoken. He seemed happy when he managed to help during the timing of recreating the ‘old man walking’ scene.

To start off, the jury is an important role when it comes to going to trial. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to an impartial trial. A jury trial usually consists of six to twelve personnel within the community. There is a process called voir dire in which the selected jury goes through a series of question to determine their mindset and to ensure that they aren’t favoring one side over the other. Both the prosecution and defense team have a chance to select and question the jury.

According to the Ability Center, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment against a qualified individual with a disability. The ADA also, outlaw’s discrimination against individuals with disabilities in State and local government services, public accommodations, transportation and telecommunications (Blanck 5). This document explains the part of the ADA that prohibits job discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission along with State and local civil rights enforcement agencies, work to enforce this part on the law (Blanck). The law unquestionably improved the lives of people with disabilities in many ways, especially by enhancing their access to businesses and public places.

Our life experiences make our present, our values, our way of behaving and thinking. Although no one is perfect, we are prone to develop prejudice against those who are totally different from us. For most of the time, prejudice only affects us personally. But if an individual is given a power to be responsible for another person’s live or death, prejudice can turn into a deadly weapon.

5 Legislationgovuk, 'Article 6 ' (Human Rights Act 1998, 09/11/1998) accessed 27 September 2016 Scottish courts and tribunals service, 'Https://wwwscotcourtsgovuk/docs/default-source/coming-to-court/jurors/guidetojuryserviceeligibilitypdf?sfvrsn=6 ' (Guide to jury service Eligibility and Applying fot excusal, 1974) accessed 27 September 2016 Christopher H. smith, Human Rights in Northern Ireland: Congressional Hearing (DIANE Publishing, 1999) 142 Jennifer Currer and Peter Smith, AQA Law AS: Student 's Book Paperback (Nelson Thornes; New edition 2008) Kronlid [1996] AC 541 (CA) Alisdair gillespie and Siobhan weare, The English Legal System (Oxford University

A group of juror comprising of 12 men from diverse backgrounds began their early deliberations with 11 of ‘guilty’ and 1 of ‘not guilty’ verdicts. Juror 8 portrayed himself as a charismatic and high self-confident architect. Initially, Juror 1 who played the foreman positioned himself as self-appointed leader of the team in which has led his authority to be challenged as his leadership style lacked in drive and weak. In the contrary, Juror 8 is seen as the emergent leader considering his openness to probing conversations while remaining calm. Implying this openness to the present, it has become crucial that a good decision relies on knowledge, experience, thorough analysis and most importantly critical thinking.

This essay will briefly discuss the role of the jury and how it works, from the principle behind it, to the method with which members are selected, and to the powers available to jurors. Moreover, it will outline advantages and disadvantages of trial by jury, and it will point out a couple of ways which could ameliorate this type of trial. Trial by jury has been a part of the criminal justice system since the 12th century (Davies, 2015), it is considered an ancient right and a symbol of liberty (Hostettler, 2004). It creates no precedent and it can decide challenging cases equitably without making bad law, it also brings members of the public into the administration of justice and into an understanding of legal and human rights (Hostettler,