Affaf Noor Saidi 1. Consider arguments for and against granting bail to each of the following defendants. * Lucy‚ aged 22‚ has been charged with dealing heroin. She was caught with a large amount of the drug in the back of her car. She lives with her parents and has worked as an office assistant for the same employer since leaving school at the age of 16. Bail is when a person is granted temporary freedom provided the person promises to appear at court on a fixed date and pay a certain
Premium Criminal law Jury Crime
In the case of State v. Rounds‚ the defense challenges the conduct of Officer Oliver Towns and the evidence his conduct yielded. The defense wages their action on three major cases‚ all of which apply‚ but none in the way cited: Riley V. California‚ 573 U.S. ____ (2014)‚ Wong Sun v. United States‚ 371 U.S. 471‚ (1963) and Carroll v United States‚ 267 U.S. 132 (1925). This case can be narrowed down to three stages: the stop‚ the search and the seizure. All of which‚ when performed‚ obeyed the limits
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution United States
Complete the following for each theory stated in the syllabus. Name of theory: Psychoanalytic History: The founder of psychoanalysis‚ Sigmund Freud‚ laid a sold psychological foundation for future psychoanalysts to build upon and improve. By 1900‚ Freud had conjectured that dreams had symbolic significance‚ and generally were specific to the dreamer. In 1905‚ Freud published three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality [16] in which he laid out his discovery of so-called psychosexual stages. By
Premium Psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud Defence mechanism
802 The Evolving Stance of Segregation In Plessy v Ferguson the court ruled that segregation was constitutional so long as the provided separate facilities were equal. For the next fifty eight years‚ states created laws that supported their own policies of segregation. Known as Jim Crow Laws‚ these laws continued to discriminate against African Americans across nation. It was not until 1954 when the case Brown v Board of Education when the court reached a decision to overturn segregation and ruled
Premium Plessy v. Ferguson Brown v. Board of Education Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
In Wilson v. Arkansas‚ 514 U.S. 927‚ 934‚ 133 L. Ed. 2d 976‚ 115 S. Ct. 1914 (1195)‚ this court recognized that the “flexible requirement of reasonableness should not be read to mandate a rigid rule of announcement that ignores countervailing law enforcement interests
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
1 2 CASE NOTE: AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION V STODDART1 I INTRODUCTION The High Court of Australia held in Australian Crime Commission v Stoddart (2011) that a privilege against spousal incrimination does not exist at common law. This provides that a spouse sworn in as a witness loses the right to call on the privilege to refuse to answer a question at the risk of incriminating the other spouse. This case note will outline the key issues of the case‚ analyze both the High Court majority
Premium Common law Law Crime
PROJECT A CASE ANALYSIS ON Stilk v Myrick 16 December 1809 (1809) 2 Campbell 317 170 E.R. 1168 BY ROHAN GOSWAMI NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY‚ ODISHA ROLL NUMBER: 042 SEMESTER: SECOND SEMESTER COURSE: B.A. L.L.B Email: 12BA042@nluo.ac.in FEBRUARY 2013 This case analysis forms a part of the internal assignment and was assigned by the subject Professor Mr Rangin Pallav Tripathy. Issues that would be dealt with in the following case analysis: * The Law as it stood before the Case‚
Premium Contract Gentlemen's agreement Consideration
official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion. (See‚ e.g. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C. (03-475) 542 U.S. 367 (2004) 334
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States
ruled that a Kentucky statute and the United States First Amendment did not authorize his refusal to identify his informers. When Branzburg appealed‚ the Kentucky Court of Appeals denied his petition. This appeal was not the end of Branzburg’s case. A second case arose from a story published on January 10‚ 1971‚ and involved him describing details about the usage of drugs in Frankfort‚ Kentucky. In order for him to accurately report this story‚ he had to spend two weeks interviewing dozens of drug users
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution Grand jury
ARCHER V. WARNER (01-1418) 538 U.S. 314 (2003) 283 F.3d 230‚ reversed and remanded. NATURE OF CASE Leonard and Arlene Warner sold the Warner Manufacturing Company to Elliott and Carol Archer. The Archers sued the Warners in North Carolina state court for fraud in connection to the sale. The settlement was that the Warners would pay the Archers $300‚000. The Warners paid $200‚000 and executed a promissory note for $100‚000. The Warners failed to make payments on the promissory note and the
Premium Appeal United States Jury