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.
Hudson v United States FACTS: Certain banks were found to have loaned money in violation of federal banking statutes and regulations, and were civilly punished. They were indicted on criminal charges. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency concluded “petitioners used their bank positions to arrange a series of loans to third parties, in violation of various federal statutes and regulations”. The OCC took action to assess penalties against the bank officers, resulting in a consent order by which they would pay assessments of thousands of dollars, and agree not” to participate in bank affairs. “A few years later, they were indicted on several criminal charges because of the same lending transactions.” These were dismissed for violating
Sullivan will most likely be able to establish that his employer, Lonestar Bank, is liable for false imprisonment. In the state of Texas, to establish a claim for false imprisonment, the plaintiff must prove that (i.) the defendant willfully detained the plaintiff; (ii.) that the defendant detained the plaintiff without lawful authority; and (iii.) that the defendant detained the plaintiff without his consent.
What is the controversy surrounding Flex Industries? Discuss the chain of events. The controversy surrounding Flex industries is that the company has paid a bribe to government officials for evading the payment of excise duties. Entrepreneur industrialist Ashok Chaturvedi, the owner of Flex group of companies and the chief excise commissioner Someshwar Mishra were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation after it recovered $12,500 from Mishra's office and $12,500 from his car in November 2001. In May 2004, the court exonerated both Chaturvedi and Mishra because of lack of evidence.
Mean while back in the Oval office there were evidence of Nixon’s recorded conversation about the Plumber, war in Laos, and Watergate. When the Watergate investigation was exposed Nixon tried to cover and hide the existence of the Oval office tapes. Nixon thought that because he was the president laws did not apply to him, he abused his presidential powers. He tried to cover up the crimes with the FBI and CIA. The president released edited transcripts containing suspicious gaps of the watergate related oval office conversation.
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,
Analytical Framework I chose the article “Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights,” by Adam Liptak that was published January 23, 2012. This is a case about Antoine Jones. I will now discuss how governmental level, political and structural levels of analytical framework can help clarify the article. The Supreme Court opened a case on Antoine Jones who is a night club owner. He was suspected of being part of the cocaine business.
During the US invasion in 2001, he was captured by American militants and sent to Guantanamo Bay. Hamden was charged for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. Hamden was to be tried by a military commission ordered by the Bush Administration. Hamden’s lawyer challenged the case explaining that under the previous Supreme Court case of Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld(2004), Hamden does have a right for a writ of habeas corpus. Hamden’s lawyers also argued that it was unconstitutional to be tried by a military commission, under the protection of the Geneva Conventions.
Both believed that the war was just another way for large corporations to turn giant profits at the expense of hundreds of thousands of American lives in a war on foreign soil. Opposition to the war came naturally to both of them because of their contempt for American government and American business. With his rulings, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is clearly stating that freedom of speech shall be treated differently during times of war. Any incitement of insubordination or speech detrimental to the war effort would lead to federal prosecution. In my opinion, since Schenck v. U.S. established the clear and present danger test, and the Debs v. U.S. ruling was based on the Schenck precedent, both cases did indeed use the clear and present danger test.
Christine Blowe CJL 2134-2 Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Facts: Katz was arrested and convicted of transmitting gambling information. The FBI had placed a wire transmitter on a public phone booth. With these recordings the FBI use them at trail. Procedural History: Katz wanted the evidence suppressed, because he felt like it violated the Fourth Amendment. The trail court had denied.