Trunk V. Strunk Summary

“The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion;”

Not overruling and thus strengthening previous rules, promotes certainty, predictability and consistency. As stated in Lawrence v. Texas overruling can bring upon an unjustifiable result under principles of Stare Decisis and seriously weaken the court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the supreme court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law (Lawrence).

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

Res Judicata “a thing or matter settled by judgement”; in other words, the thing that has been decided. Whenever a court with jurisdiction over the lawsuit renders a final

From this particular criminal case, the defendant, David Williams, had been convicted of a homicide that was committed in the early 1990 's. Although a trial had already been given, the defense felt the evidence was mishandled, which is a failure on the prosecutor 's role in disclosing evidence, so they filed it as a mistrial. The Sacramento County Superior Court had finally ensued its retrial proceeding in 2016. According to our previous lectures, a crime is an act or violation of a criminal law for which a punishment is prescribed; the person committing

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

An Ex post facto law is a little different from the Bill of Attainder as it states that anyone who has committed a crime can be punished again if a new law is created that provides a new punishment. For example, a man stole a loaf of bread and was only given a day of jail. Later, a law is created that states all thieves are to be put to death. The man can be put to death after he served his previous punishment according to the Ex post facto law. These two laws can create very big problems for people if they did not have protection from them.

In this case study, I will explore the concept of stare decisis and wherether it is in exorable command. I will be explaining what the court means when it say that” stare decisis is not an inexorable command”. Also what it would mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare decisis actually was “inexorable command”.

This definition at first would appear broad; it involves a number of aspects of criminality. However, it was written before the

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

Stare Desis is Latin for “Standing by decided matter.” According to the Legal Dictionary, the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the precedent law, began in 12th century England, when King Henry II established the common law. According to stare decisis the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or Supreme Court become obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts which means that whatever the higher courts say is usually what the lower courts have to follow. It is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it looked at the case that allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953. Brown v. Board of Education was a case that took place 1951. In the case thirteen parents filed a civil law suit in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, regarding their 20 children. The plaintiffs, which is the parents of the children, demanded that the school district take away its policy of racial segregation that was set by the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that the children would have separate facilities but would still be equal (which they never really were). After a long and unsuccessful road with the lower courts, the case was taken to the U.S.

Most people confuse police authority with police power. What are police authority and or police power? Souryal, (2007), stated, “That Authority is the right to control the behavior of others within legally determined parameter. These include constitutional and professional limitations, which are designed to resolve conflicts in an orderly fashion. Authority stems from the practitioner’s

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

3. "the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties"

In practise binding authority may not be used within the cases. In terms of seeking out a just sentence on a case, some may decide that using, with a substantial cause, a persuasive authority may be used. This depends on the strengths of the persuasive argument, as statement in a previous paragraph. If, for example there isn’t enough