Defense Attorney Discussion Paper
6) Explain John Stuart Mills theory of higher and lower pleasures: Are there any problems inherent in the theory? Overall, does Mills idea of higher and lower pleasures make sense to you? Why or why not? An incriminating statement includes any statement that tends to increase the danger that the person making the statement will be accused, charged or prosecuted even if the statement is true, and even if the person is innocent of any crime. Thus, even a person who is innocent of any crime who testifies truthfully can be incriminated by that testimony. The United States Supreme Court has stated that the Fifth Amendment privilege: Again, select one or several CURRENT green ads; then adopting the perspective of Laurence Shames in The More Factor (80) write an essay in which you argue whether the faint green advertising Corbett describes is an expression of the American desire for more and discuss the extent to which these traits appear in the ad(s) youve selected.
This assignment asks you to study advertisings exploitation of environmentalism in order to sell products. Specifically, you are asked to select and examine the various ways advertising invokes environmental values and natural imagery. The assigned readings will help us to conduct a semiotic analysis of these adswhat do the images represented in the ad(s) suggest to you about the American culture at large or a specific segment of our culture? And to what extent can you identify and apply the techniques discussed in the readings to your ad analysis The one restriction is that you use CURRENT green advertisements. 195 The primary exceptions are for a criminal defendant not taking the stand and a suspect being subject to inherently coercive circumstances (e. g. , custodial interrogation). See Salinas v. Texas, 570 U. S. ___, No. 12246, slip op. at 46 (2013) (plurality opinion). First, it was acknowledged that every individual is protected against losing their citizenship according to the Fourteenth Amendment, in Afroyim v. Rusk.
That the Constitution requires, clear and convincing evidence that citizenship was voluntary denounced, which Congress does not have the power to constitute the standard of. Secondly, the court recognized that even though in the case of Nishikawa v. Dulles it was ruled that Congress does have the right to supply the standard of evidential proof; the case was not a fair decision based on the Constitution. Proof was left to Terrazas to show that he did not mean to denounce his citizenship. While congress does have the authority to set a standard on the federal level, it does not during civil cases. 225 Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231 (1980). Cf. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308 (1976) (prison disciplinary hearing may draw adverse inferences from inmates assertion of privilege so long as this was not the sole basis of decision against him). 203 Thus, not only may a defendant or a witness in a criminal trial, including a juvenile proceeding, In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 4257 (1967), claim the privilege but so may a party or a witness in a civil court proceeding, McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U. S. 34 (1924), a potential defendant or any other witness before a grand jury, Reina v.
Universal MLA Formatting Style Requirements
United States, 364 U. S. 507 (1960); Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547, 563 (1892), or a witness before a legislative inquiry, Watkins v. United States, 354 U. S. 178, 19596 (1957); Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155 (1955); Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190 (1955), or before an administrative body. In re Groban, 352 U. S. 330, 333, 33637, 34546 (1957); ICC v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 47880 (1894). As illustrated, U. S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendments right to free speech. The Supreme Court made an invalid choice. In another sense, the fact that Charles Schenck was not initiating any violence during his protest indicates why citizens should be required to protest 184 Maguire, Attack of the Common Lawyers on the Oath Ex Officio as Administered in the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, in Essays In History And Political Theory In Honor Of Charles Howard Mcilwain 199 (C. Wittke ed. , 1936). The historical studies cited demonstrate that in England and the colonies the privilege was narrower than the interpretation now prevailing. Of course, constitutional guarantees often expand, or contract, over time as judges adapt underlying rules to new factual patterns and practices.
How to format an essay in mla - 5) Throughout his writings, Dalrymple contrasts what we might call the tragic view of human life (held by writers like Turgenev, among others) and the utopian view (held by writers like Marx and Ibsen). Briefly describe the difference between the two, and explain which of the two you find the more plausible and why.
As the Court observed:200 187 Amendments were recommended by an Address of a minority of the Pennsylvania convention after they had been voted down as a part of the ratification action, 2 Bernard Schwartz, The Bill Of Rights: A Documentary History 628, 658, 664 (1971), and then the ratifying conventions of Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York formally took this step.
The use of this oath in Star Chamber proceedings, especially to
root out political heresies, combined with opposition to the
ecclesiastical oath ex officio, led over a long period of time to
general acceptance of the principle that a person could not be
required to accuse himself under oath in any proceeding before an
official tribunal seeking information looking to a criminal
prosecution, or before a magistrate investigating an accusation
against him with or without oath, or under oath in a court of
equity or a court of common The precedents in the colonies are
few in number, but following the Revolution six states had
embodied the privilege against self-incrimination in their
constitutions,186 and the privilege was one of those recommended
by several state ratifying conventions for inclusion in a federal
bill of Madisons version of the clause read nor shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself, but a House amendment
inserted in any criminal case into the Delivering a high-quality
product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
Thats why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will
make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
In Murphy, the Court went on to explain that a State may validly insist on answers to even incriminating questions and hence sensibly administer its probation system, as long as it recognizes that the required answers may not be used in a criminal proceeding and thus eliminates the threat of incrimination. Under such circumstances, a probationers right to immunity as a result of his compelled testimony would not be at stake, and nothing in the Federal Constitution would prevent a State from revoking probation for a refusal to answer . . . . Id. (citations omitted). In Canada, similar rights exist pursuant to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 11 of the Charter provides that one cannot be compelled to be a witness in a proceeding against oneself. Section 11(c) states: 217 Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420 (1984) (the possibility of revocation of probation was not so coercive as to compel a probationer to provide incriminating answers to probation officers questions). 232 The same situation might present itself if there were no statutory presumption and a prima facie case of concealment with knowledge of unlawful importation were made by the evidence. The necessity of an explanation by the accused would be quite as compelling in that case as in this; but the constraint upon him to give testimony would arise there, as it arises here, simply from the force of circumstances and not from any form of compulsion forbidden by the Constitution.
The difficulty is that the Court has generally not articulated the objectives underlying the privilege, usually citing a complex of values when it has attempted to state the interests Commonly mentioned in numerous cases was the assertion that the privilege was designed to protect the innocent and further the search for Although individuals must have reasonable cause to apprehend danger and cannot be the judge of the validity of their claims, a court that would deny a claim of the privilege must be perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the individual is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such tendency to incriminate. 199 To reach a determination, furthermore, a trial judge may not require a witness to disclose so much of the danger as to render the privilege nugatory.
Responses must have a minimum of 200 words each and must directly quote and properly cite (using MLA format) from the assigned textbook CompetingVisions: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. I expect substantive and scholarly responses which evince an understanding of the complex chapter readings. An important distinction[dubious discuss] in Canadian law is that this does not apply to a person who is not charged in the case in question. A person issued subpoena, who is not charged in respect of the offence being considered, must give testimony. However, this testimony cannot later be used against the person in another case. Section 13 of the Charter states: 205 Allen v. Illinois, 478 U. S. 364 (1986) (declaration that person is sexually dangerous under Illinois law is not a criminal proceeding); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U. S. 420, 435 n. 7 (1984) (revocation of probation is not a criminal proceeding, hence there can be no valid claim of the privilege on the ground that the information sought can be used in revocation proceedings).
This is a respectful submission of the prosecution arguments regarding the case R. v. Collins. The arguments will show that the evidence ceased at from the accused should be admissible in the court of law as a Mrs. Collins section 8 Charter right was not violated (R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 . 265). Case laws along other judges interpretation will reinforce the arguments presented. The paper will establish arguments based on reasonable grounds, the good faith doctrine and the admissibility of evidence. The protection is against compulsory incrimination, and traditionally the Court has treated within the clause only those compulsions which arise from legally enforceable obligations, culminating in imprisonment for refusal to testify or to produce The compulsion need not be imprisonment, but can also be termination of public employment213 or disbarment of a lawyer214 as a legal consequence of a refusal to make incriminating admissions. The degree of coercion may also prove decisive, the Court having ruled that moving a prisoner from a medium security unit to a maximum security unit was insufficient to compel him to incriminate himself in spite of the attendant loss of privileges and the harsher living However, although it appears that prisoners216 and probationers217 have less protection than others do, the Court has not developed a clear doctrinal explanation to identify the differences between permissible and impermissible Further, the Court held inadmissible at the subsequent trial a defendants testimony at a hearing to suppress evidence wrongfully seized, because use of the testimony would put the defendant to an impermissible choice between asserting his right to remain silent and invoking his right to be free of illegal searches and The Court also proscribed the introduction at a second trial of the defendants testimony at his first trial, given to rebut a confession which was subsequently held inadmissible, since the testimony was in effect fruit of the poisonous tree, and had been coerced from the defendant through use of the Potentially most far-reaching was a holding that invalidated the penalty structure of a statute under which defendants could escape a possible death sentence by entering a guilty plea; the statute needlessly encourage[d] waivers of defendants Fifth Amendment right to plead not guilty and his Sixth Amendment right to a jury