Circuit Court Case Study

The case of Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58 (‘Masciantonio’) is a High Court of Australia decision from 1995 that deals with jury direction and provocation and whether the original trial judge caused a miscarriage of justice when he ‘inadvertently or not, effectively withdrew from the jury’s consideration the issue of provocation’ or whether ‘provocation ought not to have been left to the jury at all.’

In this paper, I will explore the case of 10th Circuit: Employee Fresh out of Drug Rehab Not Protected by ADA Safe Harbor (Harrison & Wager, 2011) and discuss the following questions; The longer an individual refrains from drug use, is it more likely he or she will qualify for ADA protection? In close cases, an employee would be well-advises to consult with and obtain opinions from qualified professionals. Who are some of these professionals? Did the court follow the definition of the ADAA when it stated, “an individual is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs” if the drug use was sufficiently recent to justify the employer’s reasonable belief that the drug abuse remained an ongoing problem”? Why or why not? And based upon you

Based on our communication, please find attached information in regard of payments for your court cost in General session court. Please address your payment to Clerk of Court/General Session, PO Box 8002, Anderson, SC 29622. If you wish to receive a recipe, please sent return envelope with you

On 08/22/2017 Adrian and his siblings were returned back home of parent, however Adrian was returned under the condition that his parents find suitable placement for Adrian to live. Since Adrian was ordered home of parent, parents have attempted to place Adrian with different relatives, however his stay is only limited in their homes, as the relatives express that they are unable to look after Adrian because they work full time., and Adrian’s behavior are out of control. Family members fear the consequences of caring for Adrian due to his behaviors, and gang affiliation. Adrian has been residing in different family member’s homes, and most recently his parents Mr. and Mrs. Perez are not able to provide CSW

Plaintiff's claims regarding his ability to mail documents bears upon his constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). While prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts:

Despite its focus on relief, the Ninth Circuit shares the Tenth Circuit’s wariness of “artful

The Marshall Court permanently changed a number of aspects in the United States Government. The Court affected the amount of power the Federal Government possessed, the government’s power over the economy, their role as the Federal Government, the concept of implied power, and the rights of American Indians. The Marshall Court system ultimately gave the Federal government, most notably the Judicial Branch of the government, a greater amount of power to sway the decisions of the states. The Judicial Branch of the government became assertive, pushing to make their judgment absolute, this removed power from the states. The Marshall Court allowed the Federal Government to create a powerful Judicial Branch that was capable of changing many aspects of the American court system and the rights of the states.

I, Michelle Estrada, am presenting this letter to you -----the judge name----- to support my father Luis Raul Estrada and Stephanie Ciani Messick during this process of hardship. I am aware that my biological mother, Cindy Estrada, is demanding to have full custody of my two siblings, Christina Marie Estrada and Alex Anthony Estrada.

The judicial nomination process has changed since 1985 because of Robert Bork which forced presidents to appoint noncontroversial judges. Also, senatorial courtesy has become a major step in the nomination process. A blue slip is something the senator of the state that a judge is from to either confirm or deny them.

What are some of the factors that a president should consider as he presents his nominations for Senate confirmation?

The first reason this case should be judged under the procedural harmless error standard is because the error originated under the Federal Rules of Evidence, not the Federal Constitution. Mr. Brown specifically alleges that the District Court’s error originated under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). R. at 14. Court precedent treats errors arising under federal codes and rules as procedural errors while errors arising under the Constitution, such as the Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial, are treated as constitutional errors. Compare United States v. Lane, 106 S.Ct. 729 (1986) (finding violations of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure procedural in nature) with Chapman v. California, 87 S.Ct. 827 (1967) (finding claims arising under the Constitution as constitutional errors). Although Mr. Brown did not allege a constitutional violation, if he had, “even some constitutional errors [may] be deemed harmless, not requiring the automatic reversal of the conviction.” Chapman, 87 S.Ct. at 827. The error arose under the Federal Rules of Evidence, therefore the error is procedural, not constitutional, in nature.

“The primary function of American criminal courts is to determine the legal guilt of the accused—that is, to determine if a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime”, they essentially take over where police left off (Robinson, 2009). Though courts do much more than find people innocent or guilty, they also are “responsible for determining bail, conducting preliminary hearings (or grand juries), ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and determining the appropriate sentence when a finding of guilty has been reached” (Robinson, 2009). Though they perform many functions for the criminal justice system, there are many issues still facing the courts today. In this paper I will be identifying

Malcolm Gladwell once stated, “ten thousand hours of deliberate practice are needed to become world class in any field” (Gladwell). In other words, Malcolm believed that an individual who dedicated thousands of hours to a specific occupation would manifest success. Similarly, this ten-thousand-hour rule could apply to a certified specialist in appellate law because anyone able to meet the challenge and educational requirements to become a certified appellate specialist would have spent at least ten thousand hours practicing in this specific field. According to John Derrick who is a certified specialist himself stated, “Out of approximately 222,000 licensed lawyers in California, about 250 have this certification – roughly, one in every 900”

The Supreme Court in Virginia reviews decisions of the circuit courts and the Court of Appeals when such appeals have been allowed, decisions from the State Corporation Commission, and certain disciplinary actions of the Virginia State Bar regarding attorneys (“Virginia Court System”, 2009). The Court of Appeals in Virginia, reviews decisions of the circuit courts in domestic relations matters, traffic infractions and criminal cases, appeals from administrative agencies, and decisions of the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. (“Virginia Court System”, 2009). When comes to the Circuit Court in Virginia, the circuit court is the general jurisdiction trial court with authority to try all types of civil and criminal cases. (“Virginia Court System”, 2009). The general district in Virginia, is a limited jurisdiction trial court that hears civil cases involving amounts in controversy up to $25,000, and conducts trials

Question 1 : The supreme court of the United States is a court of last resort, it’s the highest court in the USA, and there is no other court with higher authority. All cases that reach the Supreme Court have been heard from the decisions of lower courts across the nation. Once a case works its way through lower courts, a party can petition if they want to have their case heard by the Supreme Court, but Supreme Court is extremely picky regarding cases. In order for a supreme court to hear the case, 4 of the 9 justices of the court must agree to hear the case. If judicial writ is granted, the time frame for the parties is set. The petitioner has 45 days to file their brief on the merits, which explains their argument to the court.