Appellant’s attorney, Brad Manson stated that the judge in the divorce trial, Honorable David W. Hauber demonstrated prejudice against Darol Rodrock and violated the Kansas Code of Ethics. He believes that the judge was being sarcastic to the attorneys, was high handed with the orders to the Special Masters and strong armed Darol Rodrock to liquidate his estate to force a settlement which violated the Kansas Code of Ethics. The panel asked what Manson wanted them to do in relief of the Ethics violation and his response was that he wasn’t asking them to do anything. Chief Judge Arnold-Burger laughed and said well you said he violated the Judicial Ethic Code and that’s pretty serious. Manson again listed the reasons why he believes Judge Hauber was unethical. The panel again asks, what relief …show more content…
That the judge picked on both sides equally.
The Panel asked Mr. Manson why they didn’t order to recuse if they thought the judge was being unfair and he stated that he didn’t know. He thought that they all wanted the case tried and to move forward. He reluctantly agreed that they were a bunch of old bird trial lawyers that were tough and maybe that is the way the judge should have been but maybe he went too far.
The panel asks if a complaint was filed against the judge. Since one wasn’t the panel now tells Mr. Mason that since they didn’t feel he was so unethical or unfair to file a complaint but instead filed an open public brief accusing the judge of being unethical. The panel then states to Mr. Mason the steps he should have taken if he felt the judge was unethical, by filing in the Judicial Qualifications Commission and move to recuse if they feel he is unfair.
Mr. Mason does not feel that should be done but wants to use it in the argument about the Judge ordering the Special
The Judge then asked if any panel members had trouble reading, writing, or speaking English. He also asked if anyone was affected by or taking care of someone with a chronic health issue that interfered with their ability to serve on a jury, and two members had family undergoing treatment that they cared for. The doctor previously mentioned was scheduled to be in the Operating room during the trial. After that, he continued to ask if anyone had nonrefundable travel plans, which several people did, and after that he asked if anyone had childcare conflicts. There were three single dads in the room unable to serve for that reason. Lastly, he asked if there was anything that impacted someone’s ability to be an impartial juror that had not been previously discussed. When no one
Now, all the eyes of Pinewood Estates seemed affixed to him as the courtroom was once again filled with its gallery. Judge Ricardo Sandoval had been told the jury had their decision; Min-jun’s fate was in the hands of the jury. Sandoval cringed with trepidation; he couldn’t lose Min-jun to the prison system.
Charles Miles Maddox was born on November 12th 1934 in Cincinnati Ohio to Kathleen Maddox. A few years after Charles was born Kathleen had married William Manson who gave Charles his last name. The marriage did not last long, after the divorce Charles was sent to an all boy school. At an early age Manson showed signs of a serial killer, in elementary he would gain followers of mostly gullible girls and tell them to attack other girls but when teachers questioned Manson he would tell them that the girls had done the acts on their own will and he had nothing to do with it.
Charles Milles Maddox was born on November 12, 1934 in Cincinnati, Ohio. As he tells it, his mother Kathleen Maddox played a big factoring role in his beginning stages of life. As she was only sixteen years old when she had him and was nowhere near ready to take on the responsibilities of motherhood. She ran away from home and shortly after Charles was born she married William Manson, and older man in which she wouldn’t be with long. This is where Charles acquired the last name Manson. In his early childhood his mother was in and out of his life, constantly leaving him with his grandparents and family. Kathleen was arrested when
Angry! Hostile!” This causes him to not listen to the other jurors opinions and block out any idea of the defendant being innocent. His prejudice is further understood when he says “this kid is guilty. He’s got to burn. We’re letting him slip through our fingers here.” Juror #3 is only able to see the young boy on trial as a symbol of his own son and is therefore unable to look past his own anger towards his son and see the case for what it really is. It is only through the help of juror #8 does juror #3 finally let go of his personal prejudice and sees the truth about the case and changes his vote to not guilty.
Infamous cult leader and convicted killer of the 60s Charles Manson died in prison at the age of 83 this Sunday.
In the summer of August, 1969, free love reigned and cries of protest against the Vietnam War could be heard throughout the streets of America. It seemed to most that this era, filled with the ideals of hippies and psychedelic media, would never end. However, the era seemed to come to an abrupt halt on the night of August 9th, when five innocent people were horribly slain, including pregnant actress Sharon Tate. These murders would be followed by another set, the following night. This time it would be Leno and Rosemary LaBianca, wealthy grocery chain owners. Though the murders were at first unsolved, Charles Manson and four women, who were a part of his cult-like “family,” were accused, in December of that year, and put on trial for
Juror 4 is able to remain calm and composed throughout the most stressful of situations. While Juror 10 exhibits racial outbursts; “They get drunk”, “That's the way they are!”, “VIOLENT!”, “These people are dangerous. They're wild. Listen to me. Listen.” Juror 4 sat through this entire scene without saying a word. It is only until Juror 10’s monologue is finished that Juror 4 speaks, calmly asking Juror 10 to “Shut [his] filthy mouth.” Juror 4 never discredits or implies anything towards the defendant and is always careful of what he says. After Juror 10’s tirade, Juror 4 tries to soften the impact created by 10; “Slums are potential breeding grounds for criminals.” He never attacks or hypes the situation at hand. He draws around ‘potential’ possibilities. Juror 4 initially had his doubts at the start of the case but was the only character that overcame his predisposition based on the analysis of facts and evidence. Rose’s character and only this character had the intelligence, confidence and persistence to keep his head in the tense moment Juror 10 created.
Charlie Manson, as a child, lived a broken life. His mother did not want anything to do with him. She was a prostitute and an alcoholic that tried to escape Charlie by throwing him in schools and tossing him on the street. He ended up getting put behind bars for a great fraction of his life. He never really ended up having a childhood. All it consisted of was hate and refusal. This taught him wrong and put him in a state of psychic trauma which craved love and attention. This attention he got was from negative doing, such as stealing a car and going to jail.
Charles Manson became known worldwide after helping commit numerous gruesome murders near Hollywood, California. Although, Manson’s legal troubles did not start from that point, he had been in and out of institutions and prisons since the age of twelve, for many different reasons. “For, let out of prison in 1967, the year of ‘the summer of love,’ he became the most hated and vilified figure in America, a symbol of everything that had gone wrong in the ‘60s” (Smith). Even though his release from prison was short lived, he managed to do a lot of damage during his time of freedom. Manson received a life sentence in May of 1970 for the nine murders he helped execute (Baughman). Charles Manson is a well recognized name across the United States.
He is the only juror who votes “not guilty” at the first vote. He is discontent with the way the trial was handled and wants them to discuss the evidence in greater detail. Met with much opposition, he continues to advocate for the boy. We learn that he is an architect, by trade.
Each member of the jury played a key role in the development of the group and the task at hand. The foreman played a major task role and was almost like a manager of the group. He didn’t have much to contribute to the discussion of the case, but he tried to
But I still go to get my guy off. Jelnick’s been transferred to another court, and P.J. McCormick’s going to hear it, and that’s going to cost me at least another hundred” (Hake 83). After bribing one judge, this lawyer goes on to state he will be bribing another judge to get his client off. Rather than doing his job the legal and ethical way the lawyer decides to partake in fixing cases.
During dinner, the jury discretely discussed their votes. Only one deemed Carl Lee as not guilty. During the second dinner’s discussion, when more jury deemed Carl as guilty, the jury who deemed Carl Lee as not guilty recognized that his opinion was not in favor and he agreed that Carl Lee should be
The issue on appeal was Palmer J’s order that Harris pay compensation in the sum of $11,000 for his misuse of the confidential information. The appellants sought leave to appeal against the orders for exemplary damages for breach of fiduciary duty, which was granted.