Disgrazia V. Judicial Case Study

does not present a justiciable issue); Di Portanova v. Monrow, 229 S.W.3d 324, 329 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 2006, pet. denied) (beneficiary could not bring declaratory judgment action to resolve dispute over how trustee should exercise discretion given to trustee in the trust instrument). Here, no justiciable conflict exists because Texas law clearly establishes that Plaintiff has no equitable (or legal) interest in the settlement funds paid by Geico to St. David’s.

In the second case Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital, Corporate Negligence was clearly performed. Invispress.com states that “the existence of the records shows that Misericordia had been negligent in hiring Salinsky”. The facility should have done a more thorough investigation and followed the state’s bylaws and statutes pertaining to the proper credential verification on Dr. Salinsky upon applying to Misericordia Community Hospital before giving him the privilege to practice. If only they would have done that, they would have realized that Dr. Salinsky had falsified numerous statements on his application. I personally think that both the hospital as well as Dr. Salinsky are both at fault for the permanent damage they caused the patient

I agree with you that the Ex Parte Crow Dog Supreme Court decision of 1833 was to uphold the law that established with the Indian Nation. The U.S government stated that the Indians had the right to rule the affairs in their own land by their own laws. In order to keep that promise, the Supreme Court released the murderer. Considering such indulgence may cause a series of problems, they established the Major Crime Act to regulate some crimes within the Indian territory. To verify the validity of this act, the court adjudicated the U.S v. Kagama case according to the law. Therefore, these affairs had very close connection.

In the case, Giglio v United States in 1972, it was determined the prosecution has a legal requirement to disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defense, this rule established the application to exculpatory evidence the prosecutor may be unaware of (McDonald & Means, 2016). In the Giglio case, the prosecution provided a key witness, an accomplice to the crime, who testified he had not been made any promises of immunity for his testimony. Following Giglio’s conviction, the defense discovered there was an offer made to the accomplice by another prosecuting attorney. The case was appealed, overturned, moreover, a new trial was allowed. The credibility of the witness was lost in the previous trial, his statements under oath were that he had

In the matter of Fare v. Michael C. (442 US 707) (1979), Michael, the offender, was arrested on suspicion of murder in Van Nuys, California. Michael, 16, was already on probation and had a long history of criminal offenses. Before any questioning, Michael was advised of Miranda Warnings, per Miranda v. Arizona. Upon being informed of Miranda Warnings, Michael had requested to see his probation officer. This request was denied by law enforcement. Michael C. had never asked for an attorney and, upon his request being denied, Michael proceeded to make statements without an attorney present. These statements made to law enforcement eventually led to Michael incriminating himself.

the federal government, and since there was no warrant for that property to be searched law enforcement had no right to go in his personal property. The federal agents had help by Detective Gonnagetcha and stopped Mr. Disgrazia and arrested him for traffic warrants, and arrested him where he found the storage key. He then drove done and discovered Mr. Disgrazia belongings, but no warrant was provided, and the detective had no legal right to be there. American citizens have fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment. People have the right to petition the government when they believe their rights are being violated. Mr. Disgrazia is allowed to appeal his case to the Court. He has every right to argue his case, and be given a fair trial

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Miranda’s appeal. It ruled that in the police interrogation of Miranda, the police did not follow the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment says that a criminal suspect has the right not to incriminate himself, or “to be a witness against himself”. The Sixth Amendment says that a criminal defendant has the right to an attorney. Before Miranda’s interrogation, the police did not inform him of these rights. Miranda had no attorney during the interrogation. So Miranda’s conviction was reversed by the

In the case Miranda vs. Arizona. This case goes against the 5th and 6th amendments. Miranda says that the police had violated his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Miranda addressed the Escobedo rule which states evidence obtained from an illegally obtained confession is inadmissible in court. Also addressed was the Gideon rule which states all felony defendants have the right to attorney. But the police say that Miranda completely voluntarily signed the confession.

The Fifth Amendment right allows us to have a right to an attorney once our Miranda warning has been given. From the onset Miranda v. Arizona (1966) we became more aware of these rights which are continuously being reviewed by the justices, in regards to our rights not just to counsel, but also during an interrogation; and the “Sixth Amendment ensures the right to effective assistance of counsel during the critical stages of a criminal prosecution” (“The Difference between”, n.d.). So, as we consider these amendments we must also understand that they tend to overlap and bear several differences between them.

The Miranda v. Arizona case holds that a person in police custody cannot be questioned without being told that he or she has the right to remain silent, he or she has the right to a lawyer (at government expense if the person can’t pay for it, and lastly that anything the person says after knowing of these rights can be used as evidence of guilt at trial. This case makes sure that a person in custody will not give up without knowing the Fifth amendment, which gives the criminal the right to refuse to be a witness against themself and the sixth amendment, which gives the criminal a right to a lawyer. Without these two fundamental rights, the court will rule the case “dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings” “no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be used for the product of their free choice.”

In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury, the motif “both dead & alive” reminds me of walking zombies, the society, and Montag’s wife, Mildred. By walking zombies, I mean people who are living life without living. People who don’t even know who they are anymore. When I talk about the society in this book, I’m talking about a dystopian society. And Mildred? She’s totally conformed to this creepy society.

The Supreme Court founded their decision on the Fifth Amendment rather than the Sixth Amendment due to the intimidating nature of the custodial interrogation by law enforcement. No admission could be permissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights and the suspect had relinquished their rights. The person in custody must, prior to being questioned be clearly informed of their right to remain silent and that whatever they say will be held against them in court. They must be informed that they have the right to consult with an attorney and that

In the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare, Macbeth the main character has a dramatic rise to kingship but suddenly loses it in his tragic downfall. Characters in works of literature usually have a downfall due to a certain event or trait they possess, in this case Macbeth has too much greed. Early on in the play, three witches give Macbeth a prophecy, this entails that he will become the Thane of Cawdor and then king. They also tell him that he will never be defeated from a man that was born from a women. Throughout the play Macbeth sticks to this and ends up becoming king but in an inhuman manner. Macbeth kills the previous king Duncan to gain his power just like the prophecy, once he has the power it gets used to his advantage. Next, as Macbeth gets too greedy with his belief in the prophecy he feel unstoppable and accepts a fight with Duncan who has a strong army ready to defeat Macbeth who is slowly breaking down. Macbeth's excessive amount of greed is responsible for his downfall because of his hunger for power, abuse with

Miranda Rights are meant to be read to those being detained by police prior to an interrogation about a crime, or when a suspect is taken into custody. A police officer must be careful in the order in which they question the suspect and read the suspect his or her rights. If care is not given to this, the case could turn out in similar fashion to the decision of Fellers v U.S. Two police officers went to the home of John J. Fellers to arrest Fellers because of an indictment for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The officers relayed to Fellers that they wanted to discuss his involvement in the conspiracy and Fellers subsequently admitted he had used methamphetamine and had also associated with some of the others named in the indictment. Fellers was not advised of his Miranda Rights at this time. The officers then proceeded to take Fellers to jail where he received his