Legal Case Study: Mel's Case

Wendling sent notice to the two defendants stating the stipulations of the contract, neither responded.

The U. Burns Law Group, LLC is a law firm that is located in Decatur, Georgia. The U. Burns Law Group, LLC specializes in church law, family law, and entertainment law. The U. Burns Law Group, LLC is also an expert in estate planning and probate law, personal injury and medical malpractice, and criminal law. Their church law services include corporation formation, contract review, 501(c)3 status applications, bylaws drafting, insurance and policy review, and litigation defense. The family law areas of practice they cover include contested and uncontested, divorce legal separation, child support, child custody and visitation, legitimation, protective orders, etc. The U. Burns Law Group, LLC is a proud member of the Georgia Bar Association,

In 1980, at Piscataway Township High School, 14-year-old T.L.O. and a peer were caught smoking cigarettes in a school restroom which violated school rules. The two violators were taken to the Assistant Vice Principal’s office where one student confessed to smoking while the other, T.L.O., denied the allegation. The Assistant Vice Principal demanded T.L.O to hand over her purse where he found cigarette papers, cigarettes, a pipe, marijuana, a list of students who owed T.L.O., and a large amount of money. The school authorities contacted T.L.O.’s mother who then brought T.L.O. to turn herself in; she eventually confessed to having sold marijuana on school grounds. Juvenile delinquency charges were brought upon T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic

In reviewing the sample reports in Chapter 19, the appropriate case study that correlates with the case study of Kevon Collins is the report of Todd Merton (transfer to adult court) (Melton et al, 2007). The individuals in both reports have committed felonies which Title 18, U.S.C., Section 5032 is delinquency proceedings in district courts transfer for criminal prosecution; as well as Section 5037 (d) to determine the juvenile supervision (Legal Information Institute, 1992). The attorney of Merton and the judge from the case study of Collins wants to assess for intellectual functioning and psychological maturity.

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

S.B. is a 16 years old African American male that has been charged with sexual assault. He pleads not guilty to the charges and announces that he was unsure of the events prior to the alleged charge because he was under the influence of alcohol. He resides with his mother in government housing in a relatively low-income area in Toronto. He has been mandated to a detention facility awaiting trial and his engagement with a worker has been ‘highly recommended’. His father is not in the picture and his mother is utterly disappointed in him and her engagement in the case is minimal. In addition, the mother notes that she prohibits the father from coming in contact with S.B. due to the fact that she was suspicious of sexual abuse.

The state of Mississippi has not passed many laws, which are named in honor of crime victims. A check of the state legislature’s web site, which shows the status of bills passed during each legislative session, shows that, since 2006, only three laws have been passed, which are named in honor of crime victims (Miss. Bill Status, 2016).

During juvenile court proceedings, three teenage boys admit to sexually assaulting Audrie and possessing photos of the assault--both felonies. As a result, two of the boys are sentenced to thirty days in juvenile detention to be served on weekends, and the other receives a sentence to serve forty-five consecutive days in juvenile detention. Because the assailants are considered minors at the time of the crime, they are not publicly identified, and their convictions remain concealed.

Prior to his arrest and conviction, Brendan Dassey was a 16-year-old high school sophomore, and was described as a very shy boy who didn’t say much and a slow learner with “really, really bad grades” (Dassey v. Ditmann). He had no prior contact with law enforcement, and in school, he followed the rules and didn’t cause any trouble. However, Dassey also suffered from intellectual deficits, such as a “low average to borderline IQ,” difficulties in understanding certain aspects of language, difficulties with expressing himself verbally, as well as difficulties in the “social aspects of communication,” which included “understanding and using nonverbal cues, facial expressions, eye contact, body language, [and] tone of voice” (Dassey v. Ditmann). Due to his intellectual deficits,

On the Summer night of July 15, 2003, Evan Miller along with an accomplice committed murder by the way of battery and arson (Oyez). Nearly a decade later, this case would play a crucial role in the Supreme Court decision on mandatory life without parole sentences of juveniles. In a decision which relied heavily on the beliefs and opinions of those present, the court argued the culpability of youth with regards to actions such as murder. Much of the rationale used on the date of the oral argument stemmed from the former cases of both Roper V. Simmons (2005) and Graham V. Florida (2010). Essentially, the Miller V. Alabama case

Laws have been put in place of the years to ensure that everyone has equal opportunities when it comes to getting a job, keeping a job, and having access to goods, services, and locations. Several of the laws that have been enacted over the years include the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, the Age Discrimination Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities of 1990.

Both juveniles and mentally ill adult offenders fell under the above category, it was possible that one could be found not liable due to their age and mental status’ and win a victory in court that could be categorized as legal injustice. Throughout this paper, inconclusive evidence was found that suggested legal definitions were basically written the same but were interpreted differently by various courts. The only noticeable shifts were found in the application of these terms inside the criminal justice system Jenkins (2003). Attorneys often used word play to make their arguments during a trial. The interpretation of words were what many felt changed the direction of the judicial outcome Feld (1991). Many findings support

UCLA Law Review source is most reliable because it draws leading practitioners, students, and professors to a forum that is designed to exchange of ideas and to facilitate. The presumption is that minors cannot legally consent to sex and thus are always victims. Being characterized as a victim helps youth access support services and avoid prosecution in certain circumstances. However, local and state governments struggle to provide all youth with comprehensive resources. The conventional wisdom is that the distinction between legal and equitable remedies is outmoded and serves no purpose. Young people locked up in juvenile prisons have an enormous need for mental healthcare, one which juvenile prisons have consistently found themselves unable

Many have argued that competency to stand trial is the “most significant mental health inquiry pursued in the system of criminal law” (Cowden & Mckee). This pillar of the American Legal System assures that those accused of criminal acts must be sufficiently competent to understand and partake in the trial proceedings. The threshold of competence can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it mainly hinges on a series of factors such as cognitive deficits, the presence of a mental illness, and an inability to comprehend or effectively communicate with legal counsel. While this standard was made legal precedent in the 1960s it was only in regards to the adult criminal system; however, in past decades legal reform has allowed for youths to be tried and subjected to the same punishments as adult defendants (Schwartz & Grisso). This legal development brings about a very imperative issue: Should youth offenders be subjected to the same standard of competence as their adult counterparts? Furthermore, since these statutes were developed for determining competency in adults, can they properly recognize the uniqueness of the youth population?

In the case between R. v Maracle, it was about a 14 year old Brantford female was kidnapped at gunpoint by David Maracle on May 26, 1997 and brutally and repeatedly raped. This event had accused on 1997, and then was farther investigated and made its way to court. On November 8, 2000, the trial judge found the appellant to be a dangerous offender and ordered him detained for an indeterminate period. The appellant appeals conviction and sentence. The case was later appealed in 2006. This case took place in superior court of justice. This case took place because the appellant’s conviction and sentence. In this case it shows the dangers so sex offenders and how hard they try to get away with crime that they have committed, even though they left all the proof / evidence behind at the location which was all leading up to them, being the one to frame. (http://www.thespec.com)