1 / 17

Michele, Chris, Byron, Mike

Cases for Discussion. Michele, Chris, Byron, Mike.

erelah
Download Presentation

Michele, Chris, Byron, Mike

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cases for Discussion Michele, Chris, Byron, Mike

  2. On May 7, Bart Masters turned 18. The evening of that day, he was caught stealing a woman’s purse. “Don’t worry,” he told his friend Julia, “I just turned 18 today, they won’t try me as an adult. I’m too close to being a juvenile.” Is he correct?

  3. No, he isn’t correct. Once you turn 18 you are tried as an adult no matter what the circumstances are.

  4. Suppose someone has injured you. Do you have a duty to sue them for the injury even when the costs of bringing suit may be more than you can recover?

  5. No, you don’t have to absolutely sue them especially if the cost of the suit is more then you will recover in the very end result. You would be throwing away money rather than getting money.

  6. If you were called to testify as a witness in a friend’s criminal trial, would you have the moral strength to tell the complete truth even if your friend might be convicted as a result?

  7. You would have to tell the truth in the trial even if it’s your friend you can’t lie to jury Because you would end up getting in trouble for lying to the jury.

  8. When a tip was received that marijuana was being grown in his greenhouse, Michael Riley’s property was observed from a helicopter by an investigating officer. The helicopter flyover was deemed necessary because the items within the greenhouse could not be observed from a nearby road. Riley was subsequently arrested and tried for offenses stemming from his cultivation efforts. The defense challenged the use of the information acquired by the helicopter flyover saying that it was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. The Florida Supreme Court agreed with the defense. Could the state of Florida appeal to the decision to the U.S. supreme Court? Why or why not?

  9. Yes, because it’s a federal issue. The state of Florida did appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court and allowed the search. The police did not have to get a warrant to observe what is obvious to the naked eye at 400 feet in the sky.

  10. Priscilla is being sued in small claims court by her landlord for past due rent. “Just wait,” she exclaims. “Once I get in front of that jury, they won’t award him the money. After all, he shut off the water several times and didn’t even have heat in the building for over a month last winter.” What is wrong with Priscilla’s estimate of the situation?

  11. There are no juries in small claims so the judge can lower the standards of evidence and not require them to be represented by attorneys.

  12. June lost her case in trial court. She thought that the plaintiff, Sid, had lied during the trial. On appeal, she requested that she be allowed to appear and explain why she thought Sid had lied. Will her request be granted?

  13. No, because there are no witnesses in the court room and you can’t appeal off an assumption of someone lying.

  14. A 17-year old boy first appeared in juvenile court to answer charges of vehicular homicide. The incident had occurred when he was 16. By the time the case actually went to trial the boy was 18. Should he be tried as an adult? Why or why not?

  15. The boy should get tried as an adult because of his ages the age limit for an adult is 18 so he would be going to jail not to a juvenile court.

  16. Colleen Donnelly filed charges with the equal employment opportunity commission against her employer, yellow freight, for sex discrimination. After she filed the charges, colleen received notice from the EEOC that she had 90 days to bring suit. This 90 day period was a procedure for claims under the federal civil rights act of 1964. Within that period Donnelly did indeed file suit but in an Illinois state court under an Illinois statue that also prohibits such discrimination. After the 90 day period had expired however she tried to transfer the suit to a federal court. Yellow freight defended claiming that she could not make such a transfer as the 90 day period expired for federal actions. Should she be allowed to go forward with her suit? Why or why not?

  17. Yes. She had proceeded in good faith and had properly filed in accordance with the state statute and within the 90-day federal period regardless of the court in which the suit was brought.

More Related