Citation: Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) Parties: Luis E. Melendez: Petitioner Facts: Petitioner was tried in state court on charges for distributing cocaine and trafficked in cocaine, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws and the prosecution entered into evidence certificates signed by state laboratory analysts, which stated that evidence seized from the petitioner was cocaine. The state called no witness to allow cross examination on the veracity of the report, but relied instead on a state law allowing affidavits of lab analysis to be admitted. Petitioner objected to admission of the certificates, claiming that their admission violated his right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to confront the analysts who signed the certificates, but the trial court overruled the objection and admitted the certificates under Mass. Gen. Laws.
They had quite a bit of luck until the employers decided they were going to fight back and take them to court. It didn’t end well for the union leaders, as they were found guilty of conspiracy in how they were getting their wage increases. Each of the leaders were then fined eight dollars, had to pay the court fees, and withdraw their union actions. This court ruling established labor unions to be illegal conspiracies all together, and they remained that way until Commonwealth vs. Hunt. The court found the workers guilty of conspiracy in violations of English Common Law.
Society often judges rape victims to be as guilty as the rapist” (Pember 280). The last area of privacy law is false light. It is illegal to publicize material that places an individual in a false light if the false light in which the individual was placed would be offensive to a reasonable person and the publisher of the material was at fault when the publication was made (Pember 291). False light law is rapidly losing recognition among the courts. False light occurs when a false statement is published about an individual that causes them to feel
Women reporting Iraq Assaults” is single sided, and gives a strong look at the social conflict paradigm. Risen makes attacks at the U.S. government, as he journals that “the Bush administration has not offered to develop a coordinated response to the problem to justify the failure to protect the female employees in Iraq.” With demonstration of the social conflict perspective he begins to examine the macro level of society. The social problem of women not receiving support for their allegations of sexual assaults emerges from the problems of how our government is handling the War In Iraq, according to the bias of Risen. The bias presented in the article is a bash to the U.S. government officials, and an espousal for the feminine population. Risen argues that “The administration’s decision to rely so heavily on outside contractors … probably made it inevitable that contractor crime would emerge as a problem as the war dragged on.” His analysis of the social problem on the macro level keeps everything related and on the level of the government and the
The victim was harassed by co-workers and obviously quite embarrassed. The victim pressed charges against both Medlantic and Tijuana Goldring. Medlantic was found guilty for breach of confidential relationship and was made to pay the victim two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. However, Tijuana was not found guilty of invasion of privacy because the disclosure was not within the scope of Goldring’s employment with WHC. Medlantic filed a motion for judgment arguing that Doe’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
Removing Bales from Afghanistan to be tried in the US has provoked worldwide controversies between countries in the Middle East against the US. Not only does our nation face possible retaliations from Afghanistan, we also lose our relationships with these countries. Giving Bales the opportunity to stand in an American court room is rather contradicting, being that America is the leading promoter of “world peace.” Our nation is in a predicament that could have been avoided, this was the initial mistake. In 1995, three service members of the US were charged with the rape of a 12-year old girl in Japan. The men were tried by the Japanese
Jennings has the right to sue Armington in Civil Court for Wrongful Act; pain and suffering brought on by being shot and seriously injured during the robbery (Miller, Jentz, 2008). In a Civil Court of law, all he has to do is provide burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence; Armington was robbing a drugstore, shot and seriously injured Jennings, the drugstore clerk during that time. Once Armington is found guilty (Verdict) by 3/4’s majority a remedy is render (monetary);damages to compensate for the harm or a decree to achieve an equitable result (Miller, Jentz,
An important example is the Supreme Court case Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986): “Plaintiff Vinson claimed that she had submitted to the unwanted sexual advances of her supervisor in order to hold onto her job. Although her supervisor denied her charges and the bank he worked for disavowed any knowledge of misbehavior, her suit finally reached the Supreme Court after six years of litigation, where a unanimous Court determined that the creation of a “hostile work environment” through sexual harassment was a form of sex discrimination”
The Justices are devoted to achiev¬ing what they see as the best legal policies, and they deviate from their most preferred policies only for strategic reasons. They have the power to put a void on anything people in the government do, this also includes the president. Many of them came from upper class and graduated from pretty prestigious schools. They also have the power to accept an appeal and make it into a case. The Supreme Court takes part in judicial review which is examination by a country's courts of the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government to ensure that those actions conform to the provisions of the constitution.
Not only is this a horrible solution to hate speech but it is completely violating students’ right to free speech. Students must think twice before making a statement that may not even be offensive to anyone but with the speech code in effect the student may be facing punishment because of it. In the passage by Alan Charles Kors titled, “The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses”, the author gives an example of unfair punishment due to the speech code enforced at Carnegie Mellon University. Kors wrote, “At Carnegie Mellon University, a student called his female opponent in an election for the Graduate Student Organization a ‘megalomaniac’. He was charged with sexual harassment” (Kors paragraph 4).