Critical Evaluation Of Court Case Regarding Commonwealth Of Virginia Against Richard Allen

Case Citation: Gallagher v. Cayuga Medical Center 151 AD 3d 1349 - NY: Appellate Div., 3rd Dept. 2017 Background: In this civil case Timothy W. Gallagher is the appellant, and Cayuga Medical Center (CMC) is the respondents. The case took place in the appellate division of the supreme court of New York, division three. The plaintiff’s complaint was that Cayuga Medical Center had asserted medical malpractice, negligence, wrongful death and emotional distressed.

Even when Michael’s new defense team, through the innocence project, found a crime that was eerily similar to the method of murder and subsequent events to the one that Michael was convicted of, the new prosecutor in Williamson County fought hard to keep DNA testing from taking place, even stating that they objected to the testing now because the defense hadn’t requested it before (Morton, 2014). There was further evidence of ineffectiveness in that the coroner who’d changed his estimated time of death between the autopsy and trial, had come under scrutiny for his findings in this case, as well as several others, with claims of gross errors “including one case where he came to the conclusion that a man who’d been stabbed in the back had committed suicide” (Morton, 2014). This was only one of the many injustices that were committed against Michael Morton throughout his trial. In August of 2006, the defense was finally granted permission to perform DNA testing on the items that had been taken from his wife’s body (Morton, 2014). Although this testing did not reveal any information about the guilty party, it did at least give Michael the knowledge that Chris was not sexually violated before or after her death (Morton,

Citation: Morgan v Sate, 537 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1989) Facts: James A. Morgan, the appellant, who at sixteen was diagnosed as organically brain-damaged and brain-impaired, murdered the elderly woman with whom he was employed to perform manual labor. Morgan is described as a teenage alcoholic, who since the age of four sniffed gasoline on a regular basis.

Holding: "The trial court then concluded that the state had made reasonable efforts to produce the witness and admitted the hearsay. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that "more

A decision held that under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant’s counsel had not met the standards of reasonable competence required of a defense. Even if a defendant and their family suggested that no mitigating evidence was available, it is required to use reasonable effort in obtaining and reviewing materials that the counsel expects prosecution to use as evidence during sentencing. The reasoning behind this decision argued that Rompella’s trial counsel did not make sensible efforts to examine the files on Rompilla’s prior convictions for rape and assault. The Court stated that the counsel should have known prosecution would present those files to the jury during sentencing, and that the information on Rompilla’s prior conviction would have found mitigating evidence about his mental health, childhood, and alcoholism that could have been used for a proper

A fact to note is that Shane admitted to being misled by patients in the past, which puts his testimony into even greater question concerning Lavallee’s credibility (R. v. Lavallee 1990). As mentioned in Ottawa L. Rev. (1985), statements and interviews made outside of court are not only questionable in sincerity, but also in memory and perception. Since much of Shane’s testimony is based on evidence that had not been proven to exist, the weight to his testimony must be minimal. With such a focus on hearsay, or second-hand evidence, it is required that less

Part 1 Explain the process of competency restoration. According to Hubbard, Zapf, & Ronan, (2003), “Competency restoration is the process used when an individual charged with a crime is found by a court to be incompetent to stand trial, typically due to an active mental illness or an intellectual disability.” Before the legal process can continue, a suspect should be restored to competency. That gives the suspect the chance to consult with his or her defense lawyer to have a factual and rational understanding of the legal proceedings.

We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed

The movie “Loving” is based on a true story, and it depicts the lives of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, living in Virginia. In 1958, the couple went to Washington D.C and got married. They married here for the reason that interracial marriage was banned in Virginia. Yet, when they got back home, they were arrested. They spent the expanse of nine years struggling for their right to live as family in their town.

US Supreme Court Legal Brief Case Name: Loving vs Virginia: Interracial Marriage Case number: 399 US 1 Facts of the case In the stage of Virginia, there was an interracial couple that had just got married. Richard Loving was white and Mildred Loving was African American. They lived in Central Point Virginia. In the middle of night one day, three officers threw open the unlocked door, went to their bedroom, and arrested the couple.

Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?

The Ethics of Fred Zain Fred Zain was a forensic lab technician that worked for both the states of West Virginia and Texas. A man who did a job he was severely under qualified for, for ten years, and who was thought to be a start asset in his line of work. Fred Zain had testified in countless cases, presenting himself well and appeared to know his trade so well that no one in the courtroom questioned the lab results obtained by Zain. It is very well known that his actions in court are viewed as unethical by today’s standards. In his time of employment, Fred Zain acquired a lengthy rap sheet of tampering and falsifying evidence, false convictions.

He says “the state has not produced one iota of medical evidence.” This makes the jury think about how valid

The case I will be concentrating on is Tomcik vs. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction in which Tomcik was imprisoned under the custody of Department of Rehabilitation and correction, based on the Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals book. The problem stimulated from continuous negligence from nurses and doctors at the department, which initially was when Tomcik received a physical evaluation, included the breast examination by Dr. Evans who stated that the examination was cursory and lasted only a few seconds, which means that not much attention was presented regarding the patient and his job. The next day Tomcik noticed a lump as being about the size of a pea in her right breast, however it was not reported by Dr. Evans.

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee the term mockingbird symbolizes innocence in a person. In the novel it focuses on the fact that innocence, represented by the mockingbird, can be wrongfully harmed. There are two characters: Tom Robinson and Arthur “Boo” Radley that are supposed to represent the mockingbird. In the novel, Tom Robinson is the best example of a mockingbird because he is prosecuted for a crime he did not commit. Also, he was judged unfairly based on the color of his skin in his trial.