Trial Court Case: Maher V. Hunt

Blackburn v. Golden and District Search and Rescue, RCMP, and Kicking Horse Mountain Resort. By: Austin Pigeon March 2017 Part 1: In the case between Gilles Blackburn (plaintiff) and Golden Search and Rescue, RCMP, and Kicking Horse Mountain Resort (defendants), Blackburn took the three defendants to the BC Supreme Court and sued each of them for negligence for not commencing a rescue, which lead to the death of his wife, Marie-Josée Fortin (Petrovics, 2011). Blackburn claims that between February 17 and 21, 2009, all three of the defendants were aware of SOS signals Blackburn had stomped into the snow in the mountains surrounding Golden, British Columbia.

Juenger 1 Sophia Juenger Mrs. Neuberger Composition 2 23 Feb. 2023 Operation After thirteen years of killings, Dahmer was finally found. Dahmer was caught after luring in Tracy Edwards. Edwards was the next person Dahmer was going to kill before Edwards got out and Dahmer was found. Edwards agreed to Dahmer at a bar to go back to Dahmer's apartment for one hundred dollars. As Edwards arrived at Dahmer’s, he noticed a foul smell, many boxes of hydrochloric acid, and nude photos of men.

During the United States history, there have been events that have impacted the course and development of politics, becoming part of what is currently, and the McCulloch v. Maryland case has been one of the most influential events in the economic area. In addition, I believe that the courage that McCulloch had to refuse to pay the taxes imposed by Maryland was an elemental key part to continue with the processes of the growth of the United States National Bank and the regulation of the coin produced by the state banks; bringing at the end a financial balance. Furthermore, in a deeper insight, it promoted the analysis of the power of the Congress and the Constitution, because at the beginning the Constitution was taken as a literal explanation

Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.

In 1986, the U.S. supreme court ruled to uphold the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing anal and oral sex in private between consenting adults, marking a legal precedent allowing individual states to freely enforce sodomy statutes of their own. This supreme court case, Bowers v. Hardwick, began when Michael Hardwick was found by police having oral sex with another man when they entered his home. Hardwick was charged with sodomy, a felony in Georgia. A preliminary hearing was held with Hardwick, as a self-described practicing homosexual, asserting that the anti-sodomy statute placed him in imminent danger of arrest. He filed suit in Federal District Court, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.

There were many court cases that were discussed in class regarding the mob versus the individual. The most important ones were the United States v. Schwimmer, Roe v. Wade, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and Brown v. Board of Education. In all but one of the cases above, the Mob (the government) used its power to stop the individual from pursuing their American dream. The individual was right in all of the cases because they had the right to express themselves and pursue their dream; and the government had to right to stop them from following it. Starting with the Schwimmer case, the individual was right because the government was not giving her a valid reason as to why they were denying her citizenship.

#1). Why did the court in the Hargrave case (Text p. 173) find that Karen Hargrave was not, in fact, married to the decedent, Duval? Common-law marriages were statutorily abrogated in South Dakota in 1959 by an amendment to the SDCL 25-1-29. The ammended statute provided that any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state.

In the case of Missouri vs. Seibert lies many liable facts within the case. Some of the relevant facts is that a woman named Patrice Seibert along with accomplices which includes her son and his friends, sets their mobile home on fire with the dead body of her 12-year-old son along with a mentally ill 17-year-old Donald Rector whom was living in the household, and days after the fire, Seibert was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first. Once she had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then preceded to read her, her Miranda rights and resumed questioning after she waived those rights. The officer swayed her to reiterate the confession

After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the

Both men were successful in their appeals as a verdict of guilty could not be settled upon as the case was based on improbabilities and circumstantial evidence that could not lead to a definite

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

However, the investigators’ even worse offense was drinking on the job and touching evidence (which is to say, eating the murder weapon). The men allow themselves to be manipulated by Mary, showing their incompetence in their job: “There was a good deal of hesitating among the four police men, but they were clearly hungry, and in the end they were persuaded to go into the kitchen and help themselves” (Dahl 9). Because they drank on the job and tampered with the evidence, any observations they made and any judgements that were based on the scene would be voided due to their compromised mental capacity. This shows the incompetence of the men by pointing out the misconduct in their job performance.

The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.

The Appeals Court agreed that suppression of evidence did violate Brady’s due process, and the case was retried as a question of ruling and not of guilt. Liberty University (n.d.) explains that “mankind is incapable of taking vengeance with proper wisdom and justice for all concerned.” (Lecture Notes: Module/Week 2)

In marcia’s case of violence and abuse, there are facts that prove her to be innocent of the murder of her husband, as well as guilty. Several details about the case show how the husband is at fault as they relate to specific theories of family violence and domestic abuse. On the other hand, Marcia may be seen as guilty due to legal matters of her acts of violence. One detail about Mitchell that sticks out greatly in this case, is that he did not work.