Category: Court

Summary

The confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh was characterized by bitter and partisan ramblings that reflected Americas divisive political landscape. The content of the documentary is proof that the Judiciary is a political playfield for the Democratic and the Republican parties as they struggle for control. A grievance between the two parties that dates back to the late 1980s has transformed the Supreme Court into a partisan entity that is politically controlled. This was confirmed by the hurried confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It was done a few days before the 2020 presidential election, against the opposition of many legislators, especially democrats who claimed it was a hypocritical move from Mitch McConnell. These choices have the potential to shape American policy and life for generations.

The FRONTLINE documentary titled Supreme Revenge: Battle for the Court chronicles a long battle for the control of the Supreme Court between the Republican and Democratic parties. The producer includes snippets of interviews with legal experts, authors, journalists, and Congressional and White House staffers to reveal the behind-the-scene occurrences. The film commences with a coverage of the failed confirmation hearing of Robert Bork, a President Reagan nominee. The failure that befell the Republican Party gave rise to a 30-year-old grievance that has transformed the Supreme Court into a political and bipartisan entity. Borks hearing was led by Sen. Joe Boden, who made sure that he was not confirmed. The democrats were worried that Borks extremist views on civil rights and social issues were not right for America. Senator McConnell vowed to retaliate against the Democrats as he felt that Borks conservative ideology did not warrant the vicious attacks waged against him. McConnell is at the center of the discussion, as his moves are recounted to reveal how he managed to build a conservative court over the years, one judge at a time.

McConnells influence is evident from the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas. Allegations of sexual harassment were brought against him by the Democrats, through Anita Hill. She accused him of discussing pornographic content with her in his office, which made her very uncomfortable. Despite the accusations, Thomas was successfully confirmed. The efforts by Biden, Kennedy, Simpson, and others failed, and he was confirmed. In the final year of Obamas administration, a vacuum was left on the Supreme Court by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, but McConnell blocked the appointment by ensuring that a confirmation hearing did not take place. After Trump became president, more conservative judges joined the Supreme Court. The nomination of Brett Kavanaugh by President Trump was confirmed despite the resistance efforts by the Democrats. McConnell was instrumental in helping Kavanaugh get the confirmation despite the scathing allegations of sexual assault brought against him by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Brett denied the allegations and used bipartisan arguments to absolve himself, just as Justice Thomas had used race to appeal to the Democrats.

During the Trumps final days as the president, an opportunity presented itself that would cement Republicans superiority in the Supreme Court. The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented another chance for the Republicans to increase their representation in the Supreme Court. McConnell pushed for the confirmation of Justice Byron White, even though the presidential elections were days away. The move was criticized as hypocritical because McConnell had opposed Obamas nominee, by claiming that it was unethical for the president to fill the opening as he was leaving office. When the chance presented itself, Senate Majority Leader did not hesitate to make a move that fulfilled a long-time dream of dominating the Supreme Court through his partys nominees. During Whites confirmation hearings, the chairman of the senate committee opened the sitting by stating that they had convened to confirm White, raising concerns that the outcome of the event was predetermined. All the Democrats voted no, 52 Republicans voted yes, indicating the bipartisan cracks that characterized the hearings. Justice White was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas, a week before the presidential elections. This was a culmination of McConnells efforts to have a Supreme Court that is more conservative than liberal. As Biden takes over as the president of the United Sates, and as the senator wins another 6-term in the Senate, the political future of the US remains hanging.

Reflection

The documentary gives a detailed coverage of how the current composition of the Supreme Court became majorly conservative. It delves into the events that took place in a span of three decades, from the reign of President Ronald Reagan to the reign of President Donald Trump. In between, the governments of Bill Clinton, Gorge W. Bush, and Barack Obama are discussed, and their efforts to gain control of the Judiciary. At a first glance, the documentary might seem like a biography of Senator Mitch McConnell, and the role that he played in securing a conservative court majority. However, it is an abrasive representation of Americas recent history, with regard to the Supreme Courts nominations. It begins with the failed confirmation of Robert Bork, and ends with the nomination and the controversial confirmation of Justice Byron White. The events explored in the documentary are a demonstration of how the Republican Party grew in influence, and the politicization of key Judiciary nominations and confirmations.

One of the films strengths is the chronological order of the key events that led to the creation of a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. The nominations and confirmations that were conducted under different governments are covered in detail and the political struggles that occurred between politicians. The producer introduces the viewer to the source of the power struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats. This makes the documentary exciting to watch because of the opportunity to connect each event to its title. The confirmation of hearing of Bork is presented in a manner that introduces the viewer to McConnells vow to seek revenge. The why, how, and who of the retaliation mission are explored in detail. Each of the hearings is connected to the development of McConnell, from a Senate freshman to a majority leader, and the main figure in attaining the objectives of the Republican Party.

The documentary is highly biased because it focuses primarily on Senator McConnells role. Instead of the title Supreme Revenge, the film could have been renamed The McConnell Revenge. Nothing is reported about the influence of the Federalist Society, a powerful organization that has influenced the nomination of judges. The film presents McConnell as a powerful lone ranger whose main goal is to fulfill a long-time dream of having a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. However, it is clear that he was receiving support from powerful individuals and organizations that are not talked about in the documentary. For instance, the producer does not explain in detail how the senator was able to block president Obamas nominee from having a confirmation hearing. He cites a single case of intimidation on a republican senator who felt that a hearing should be considered. The denial was an unprecedented maneuver of political aggressiveness that must have been difficult to achieve. It is a known fact that after Borks failed confirmation, every nominee to the Supreme Court by a Republican president has been a member of the Federalist Society.

The main focus of the film is the process that led to the creation of a predominantly conservative Supreme Court. For decades, the courts were political entities, but never were they bipartisan. The documentary could have explored this further because of its political implications. The viewer is left with many questions that could have been answered had the producer of the film pursued certain issues in a deeper manner. How does a bipartisan Supreme Court affect the justice system of the United States? What are the political implications of the struggle for representation in the Supreme Court between the liberals and conservatives? The documentary is detailed, and chronologically shows how the Republican Party managed to convert the court into their liking. However, it seems incomplete because of the exclusion of important details: the consequences of having a bipartisan court. Moreover, it seems that the producer sides with the Republican narrative that the Democrats are to blame for the political disagreements seen during all nominations and confirmation hearings.

Crown Prince Court: HR Policies Investigation

The Crown Prince Court is a successful governmental organization that assists the Crown Prince in performing his official responsibilities both at the local and international levels.

The organization also seeks to foster the interaction between the Prince and the residents of the United Arab Emirates by means of general correspondence (Crown Prince Court, 2012). Finally, the governmental body is also responsible for handling the Princes private affairs.

With regard to the above-presented information, learning and development of human resources department is the main objective of organizations managerial staff to enable high performance and create values for employees (Crown Prince Court, 2012).

At this point, the Crown Prince Court underwent the assessment carried out by Investors in People (IIP) International to allow the organization to advance their IIP Certification.

The IIP Certificate has been received in 2008 to provide a general framework for developing and advancing employees performance, as well as training the most valuable asset of the company  people (Bahrain New Agency, 2012).

The obtained credentials are unique contributions made by the Court to fulfill the vision of HR managers work on providing incentives and motivation for human capital that shapes the foundation for working out strategies and plan for the prosperity of UAE.

Rationale for the Analysis of the Selected Data

The above-presented IIP initiative is also premised on the increased tolerance to diverse cultures and nationalities, which permits the managerial staff to facilitate the decision making process and create a favorable environment for employees efficient work.

In addition, The Crown Prince itself considers it vital to reestablish HR policies and develop a new global framework in which employees can receive wider opportunities for self-development and growth.

At this point, constant monitoring and IIP assessment encourage innovation and advancement of training programs for the organizations personnel. Introducing numeric data about the employees in the Crown Prince Court will introduce new courses of action in the sphere of problem solving and decision-making (Crown Prince Court, 2012).

More importantly, HR focus will contribute to facilitating the quality of services performed within the organization as well as increasing the competitiveness over other related governmental bodies.

Findings in HR That Assist in Decision-Making

The pie chart presented below provides the areas that are engaged in developing and advancing HR policies, as well as improving the participation of all departments in value creation.

All these programs and departments focus on enriching organizational cultures that can allow the organization to facilitate international relations and improve the domestic policy.

With regard to the above-presented diagram, CPC managerial strategies, implementation of IDEX program and introduction of IIP Certification are basic pillars of HR policies that can foster the decision-making process at Crown Prince Court.

In particular, CPC managerial strategies focus on constant upgrade and innovation of employed environment to make employees feel save and secure.

IDEX Program is another important element that contributes to the quality of decision at the organization because it plays a significant role in improving international relationships. Sustaining the policy of cultural diversity is a priority for the organization.

Finally, constant assessment and control of human capital and their performance can provide the company with new information about the pitfall and challenges of operating in the workplace. The proposed three-dimensional plan creates a solid underpinning for managing the employees in the most effective way.

References

Bahrain New Agency. (2012). Crown Princes Court Maintain IIP Credentials. Web.

Crown Prince Court. (2012). CPC Management. Web.

Dream Job

The Employee benefits program is an important component of my dream job. I believe that the social package, which is designed taking into account the interests of employees, motivates to work more and better. It can raise labor productivity, and at the same time not exert an exorbitant financial burden on the organization. Moreover, in my opinion, representatives of the profession of my dream  Supreme Court Justice  should have certain privileges. They should not only be conditioned by the high status recognized by the State and maintained by it. They are also a guarantee of the independence of the Supreme Court Justice representative in the performance of his duties.

Employees, their property and their family members should be under special protection of the State. Law enforcement agencies are obliged to take all necessary measures to protect them. Moreover, the vacation should be 30 days, and its duration should increase depending on the length of service (Jacobi & Sag, 2019). In addition, representatives of the Supreme Court Justice must have the right to keep and carry official firearms for self-defence, which must be issued to them by the relevant state body. An employee of the Supreme Court Justice should only be brought to administrative responsibility only by a decision of a judicial panel of three judges (Jacobi & Sag, 2019). This is due to the need to protect them from slander.

Pay Structure

I believe that the monthly monetary remuneration of the Supreme Court Justice employee should consist of the official salary, salary for the qualification class and monetary incentives. They should also be paid extra for seniority, academic degree, honorary title, and in some cases, for knowledge of foreign languages. The life, health and property of a Supreme Court Justice employee must be subject to mandatory state insurance. Employees who have been in office for at least ten calendar years should be entitled to a one-time social payment for the purchase or construction of residential premises at the expense of the budget (Susanto & Supriyatna, 2020). In case of the death of a representative of the Supreme Court Justice related to the performance of their official duties, this right should also be reserved for their close relatives.

In case of suspension of powers and resignation, the employee must continue to pay monetary remuneration in full. If they are found to be missing, their family members will receive remuneration. Upon retirement, a representative of the Supreme Court Justice must receive monetary compensation in the amount of at least six times the amount of the monthly monetary remuneration for the position left (Jacobi & Sag, 2019). Upon retirement, they must be paid monthly funds for travel by all types of public transport of urban, suburban and local communications at the expense of the budget.

Flex-Time

According to statistics, overwork is the norm of life for an employee of Supreme Court Justice (Susanto & Supriyatna, 2020). With the busy schedule of employees, it is difficult to maintain a balance of work and rest. Most often they work on a standard schedule  from nine to six five days a week (Jacobi & Sag, 2019). Formally, the possibility of a flexible schedule for Supreme Court Justice employees exists, but it is quite difficult to get the right to manage working time.

Employees cannot choose a workplace most of the time, as they must be in the courts. However, only about 60% of the time is spent on the main function: justice (Jacobi & Sag, 2019). Thus, familiarization with criminal cases and work with documents can be carried out from a convenient place for the Supreme Court Justice employee. Twice a week they are obliged to receive the population to listen to their applications (Susanto & Supriyatna, 2020). Usually, the reception of citizens is carried out on Monday from two to six, and on Thursday from ten to one (Susanto & Supriyatna, 2020). Thus, with the exception of direct court sessions and the reception of the population, employees can set a free schedule and choose an acceptable workplace.

Strategies & Methods

The main social benefits strategies used for my dream job will be to attract and retain employees; several different methods will be used for achieving this goal. The first method suitable for the Supreme Court Justice staff retention strategy is social benefits in accordance with the hierarchical structure of the company. This method consists in assigning grades depending on the length of service (Susanto & Supriyatna, 2020). Employees at the initial stage will be offered medical insurance and payment for public transport. Further, over the years, other social benefits will be added, such as the payment of tourist vouchers, mobile communications, personal car and mobile communication payments. The second method, suitable for the strategy of attracting staff, is the formation of a package of social benefits based on the cafeteria principle (Jacobi & Sag, 2019). Supreme Court Justice employees themselves will be able to choose and put up for discussion the social benefits options that seem most attractive to them. At the end of the year, benefits can be distributed based on the needs of employees and the capabilities of the enterprise. For example, Supreme Court Justice employees will have the opportunity to choose from several benefits packages the one that would satisfy and motivate them to achieve results as much as possible.

References

Jacobi, T., & Sag, M. (2019). Taking laughter seriously at the supreme court. Vanderbilt Law Review, 72(5), 1423-1496.

Susanto, M. I., & Supriyatna, W. (2020). Creating an efficient justice system with e-court system in state court and religious court of rights. International Journal of Arts and Social Science, 3(3), 354-361.

The supreme court of the United States of America is established under article three of the United States constitution. Section 1 of article three categorically states that the Supreme Court has been given full mandate to conduct and oversee all judicial matters in the United States. In fact, the Supreme Court surpasses the Congress in terms of power and mandate, here in considered as an inferior court (The United States Constitution, 2009).The section also states that the Judges of both the supreme and inferior Courts will be the occupiers of their said offices as long as they demonstrate good behavior. The judges will also receive adequate payment for the job that they do and their payment is not to be reduced during their term in office (The United States Constitution, 2009)

This section above establishes the Supreme Court and states that judges shall hold their offices as long as when they have good conduct. It also states that they shall be paid for their services and that the payment given to these judges can not be reduced during the time the judge is in office. Powers to congress and judges to establish the court are also defined therein. Article III, section 1, clause 2 gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. This simply means that in any of the cases mentioned above will be heard for the first time in the Supreme Court not in lower courts. This clause also establishes the Supreme Court as a court of appeal for cases mentioned in Article III, section 1, clause 2.

Congress and Justices of the Court are empowered by the constitution to develop the authorities and operations of the entire Judicial Branch of government. The specific duties, powers or organization of the U.S Supreme Court are not spelled in the article above Because of this in the initial stages, the Supreme Court was weak and became much stronger only after the entry of john Marshall, the fourth chief justice (Robert, 2008).

Pre-marshall Court

At the time of its inception, the Supreme Court was made up of six members. The very first Senate bill, the Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the Supreme Court to consist of a Chief Justice and only five Associate Justices. John Jay was the first chief justice and he served alongside associate justices John Rutledge, William Cushing, James Wilson, John Blair and James Iredell.

Through the 1789 the President of the United States was given the power to nominate justices of the United States Supreme Court. These nominations were also made subject to the approval of the senate. The senate was to show approval by way of a a majority vote. Once nominated and approved. The Justices are allowed to continue in service until they either retire, die or they are impeached. The position of U.S. Attorney General was also created by the 1789 Act.

The first Supreme Court meeting of the court was held Feb. 2, 1790.the first ever case was heard in 1792 in New York City, which was the capital of the U.S.

The pre  Marshall Court was weak because of several reasons:

The Court had not yet realized or embraced its full constitutional role. An intimate relation to the Constitution was not one of the things the pre-marshal court possessed. The court could not establish this intimate relation as few opportunities for this came up. this was partly because the courts decided a significantly small number of constitutional cases. The awareness of the power of the Supreme Court to consider whether or not laws passed by congress were constitutional was nonexistent. The number of cases handle was low and this limited the courts ability to assert itself as for the Court to assert itself as a branch of government equal to the legislative and executive branches. Even so the few cases decided by the court were mostly concerned with International affairs and national security (Harvard Law, 2008).

Marshall Courts

After 1800, American law became more domesticated and moved farther away from the internationalism.changes occurred in the supreme court under John Marshall.

John Marshall was born on September 24, 1755 in Virginia. He became the chief justice in the year 1801 while during the period of John Adams presidency. the period of Marshalls service as the united states Chief Justice lasted until 1805, a total of 34 years. The powers and the role of both the Supreme Court and the judiciary system were clearly defined as a result of the firm steps taken by Marshall. Decisions made by the Marshall Court laid the foundations of constitutional law in America. The Supreme Court became established as the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution. Marshall cemented the power of judicial review that is the courts power to disregard or invalidate laws that are deemed to be inconsistent with the American constitution. Marshall held that the Supreme Court could overturn a law passed by Congress if it violated the Constitution in the case Marbury v. Madison (1803). In this single landmark case, the Supreme Court established its power to interpret the U.S. Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress and the state legislatures (Longley, 2008).

During his period in office, it was also established that the Supreme Court could consider appeals from state courts. These reforms have made the judicial system arguably the most powerful arm of government and very prestigious worldwide.

In its entire history, the Supreme Court has had only sixteen Chief Justices, and over one hundred Associate Justices.

The Current Supreme Court

Since 1869, the Supreme Court has consisted of nine members. the number of supreme court justices changed six times before 1869. From that year onwards the number has been a constant nine. The Chief Justice of the United States and Associate Justices are the constituent members of the United States Supreme Court. The number of Associate Justices as is legal has been currently fixed at eight by congress. The Supreme Court also has officers who assist it in the dispensation of its duties.

The justices currently have lifetime appointments. The constitutional base of the court remains the same.

Possible changes in the next eight years

It is debatable whether or not the Supreme Court might change significantly over the next eight years. It is possible that in terms of organizational structure, the Supreme Court is likely to remain the same in the next eight years. Changes in decision making are also less likely to occur as such decisions are normally made in accordance with the constitution of the United States. The constitution will be upheld and no contrary decisions will be made, at least thats the way it ought to be. Obama presidency could mean an approximate continuation of the current courts make-up Maoro (2009).

However as change is inevitable, and with the new Obama administration it is highly probable that there will be change in the Supreme Court. One of the possible changes will come with the appointments the president is to make. Some justices are expected to retire and their replacements may come with change (Jouvenal, 2008).

Another cause of change in the make up of the Supreme Court could be the letter sent to congress and the Obama administration proposing changes to the operation of the Supreme CourtThe letter was drafted by a group of 34 prominent legal experts. Some of the changes that may occur if the proposals are considered are the abandoning the current lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices. The terms would then be limited, judges will be considered senior after serving for eighteen years. Some justices will be encouraged to retire. The president may be allowed to nominate a new justice with each two-year term of Congress. This will ensure that there is a regular rotation of court members. It is also proposed that the chief justices term be limited to seven years. It is also proposed that justices with ailing health be advised to retire (Medical News Today, 2009).

Although these are just proposals, with Obamas vast knowledge in constitutional law, at least subtle but significant changes will occur in the Supreme Court.

Bibliography

Harvard Law (2008). Will the Supreme Court be transformed in the next four years? An HLS panel looks ahead.

Jouvenal Justin (2008).Ten picks for Obamas Supreme Court. Web.

Medical News Today (2009). Legal Experts Propose Changes To Supreme Court Justices Powers, Terms. Web.

Robert Longley (2008). Supreme Court  A Brief History. Web.

Supreme Courtus.gov (undated). A Brief Overview. Web.

The United States Constitution (2009). The US constitution.

Tony Mauro (2008). For the Supreme Court, a Term of Change Ahead. Web.

Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania concerned a lawsuit filed by the Lithuanian Government against the advertising company. According to the lawsuit, the religious feelings of believers were offended by promotional materials associated with Christianity. As a substantiation, the appeals of individual citizens were used. However, the plaintiffs claims were biased under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which implied the right to free expression of ideas (European Court of Human Rights, n.d.). Thus, the claim was not justified due to the lack of objectivity, in particular, ignoring the interests of ordinary citizens and giving priority to religious people.

Reference

European Court of Human Rights. (n.d.). European Convention on Human Rights. Web.

Introduction

Prior to trial before a jury, McNeese was accused of committing a robbery using a deadly weapon. He had served an imprisonment term in the penitentiary at San Quentin after a conviction of armed robbery, before suffering another conviction for committing a similar crime. He admitted that the allegation about his previous conviction and imprisonment were true. The court had previously ruled based on fair evidence introduced by both the defendant and the people. However, the court denied the motion of the defendant for a new trial.

Facts

McNeese entered Guy H. Millers drug store in Los Angeles on the night of June 21^st, 1939. At the store, McNeese held up an automatic pistol and robbed the person who was selling some narcotic preparations that were priced at $18 each. The defendant was clearly identified by the clerk and proprietor as the armed robber at the scene. The environmental conditions were good enough to see clearly, and the drug store was well equipped with sufficient light at the time the defendant robbed the store. Evidence presented before the court termed the conditions favorable for the witnesses who identified the defendant by observing from a distance of up to a maximum of four feet. In addition to the lightings, the intruder did not cover his face or wear any kind of disguise such as a mask. In fact, referring to the proprietors testimony, the scene of the crime was fitted with a 200-Watt light that lighted his face very clearly. After the crime, policemen visited and recorded evidence including the presence of a box that had narcotics assortment. The investigators identified the boxes as items belonging to the druggist after finding that the writings of cost marks exhibited on all the boxes were truly the handwriting of the druggist. The police visited the house of the defendant prior to the trial and recovered a gun holster, some hypodermic needles, a fake police badge as well as 38 and 32 caliber cartridges. At his trial, the defendant admitted that he was addicted to narcotics.

To oppose the foregoing, McNeese provided the court with witnesss testimony that he was seen in a bar in San Francisco at around 8 PM on the evening of the crime. They testified that McNeese was seen at San Francisco the day before the incidence, as well as the third and fourth day after the robbery. Another witness also provided a testimony that he met with McNeese in Oakland fifteen minutes after seven oclock on the evening of the day the crime occurred. There was additional testimony that McNeese did not appear at a special party of his father in the city of Los Angeles on June 19^th for which he claimed that he was absent. He stated that he was far away in the northern part of Los Angeles. Similar testimony was provided by a family member of the defendant.

The defendant testified on his behalf that he was addicted to narcotics. The drugs, which were retrieved by police from his apartment, were sold to him by a drug peddler in San Francisco. He stated that he was not involved in the robbery and told the court that he had been in San Francisco three days before the incident and about nine days after the incident occurred.

The Resolution

The jury had previously ruled on the case and defined an appeal as not frivolous. The jury also made it clear that any appeal after the ruling would not be penalized as frivolous. However, any issue presented after the previous ruling on the case would be a new one. It would be required to present facts not be amenable to simpler analysis pertaining to existing laws or the extension (Tyler, 2020). Reversal and modification of existing law were to be backed with reasoned argument. Without these conditions, the defendant would not be granted a new trial. Meanwhile, the appellant contended that the testimony about his client being in San Francisco on June 21 was not shaken and broken. Testimony for his identification was presented in a cross-examination that was not exactly in a number of particulars. The verdict was against the evidence and law that should have made the court grant the defendant a new trial. This way, the denial by the court of law for a new trial should be reversed.

The tax appellate tribunal of California State does not provide enough information regarding the standard procedure for substituting a ruling that has already been made with a new ruling (Haddad, 2016). As such, the jury would make a choice of revising their ruling if it was reasonable to do so, for example, if the defendant feels evidence was omitted during the trial. To justify support for this statement, the court referenced People v. Gilbert, where the state did not have any criminal law or procedure to guide the jury. The court also informed the appellant that he had no permission to see the person giving testimony. Therefore, the court did not observe the demeanor of witnesses upon standing as well as the existence or non-existence of candor in their testimony. The states legislature did not ordain that credibility of the person giving testimony was dependent on the jury as the exclusive judges. According to the code of civil procedures of California, section 1847, the jury should find evidence valuable if the appellant uses the right procedure to address certain issues during the previous ruling (Ledvora, 2020). Moreover, the jury should always consider valuable evidence because they are responsible for making the law clear to disputing parties.

The code of civil procedure, section 2061 limits the judges to only consider reasonable evidence regarding the application of law to a certain ruling. In fact, a contradiction in terms of testimony given between two different occasions may make the jury discard the appeal (Simonson, 2019). Combined with the alibi witnesses of the defendant, the druggist and his clerks testimony about the robbery circumstance and that among the participants therein was the defendant; and as such acted with no much regard to the strength in place that the prosecution witnesses might have looked or presented, or with little attention to the sharpness of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses on another substantial point may have conflicted with other witnesses testimony. Manifestly, as to amount to no existence of any substantial evidence, it is impossible to say that the druggist and his clerks testimonies are inherently improbable. Consequently, the jury has no power to influence the finding of triers of fact.

Conclusion

The appellant contended that there was an error in the court denying the instructions provided by the defendant. Upon defense, the jury had been corrected and in a fair way instructed on the advice of the court. The term alibi was interpreted as identifying the defendant as being in a different place when the robbery was committed. The jury considered all the evidence as per the request of the court. Therefore, if it raised any reasonable doubt sufficient as to term the defendant guilty, they should have been acquitted. The presence of the defendant at the place and time the crime was committed sufficiently justifies the acquittal of the defendant if the jury determines that there was a commission of the crime charged. The instructions from the defendant declared a defense of the alibi legitimate. In essence, the testimonies represented a claim about absence of the defendant at the crime scene on the evening the robbery was committed.

The claim of the appellant that the court gave alibi instructions emphasizes the fact the defense must be carefully scrutinized. The testimony lacks merit because the court is admonished on a mere reading of given instructions. The defendant should have been acquitted if the jury carefully considered evidence. The instructions, as read in their entirety, were just and fair to the defendant.

References

Haddad, A. (2016). Cruel timing: Retroactive application of state criminal procedural rules to direct appeals. Columbia Law Review, 116(5), 1259-1297.

Ledvora, B. (2020). Californias proposition 47 and effectuating State laws in federal sentencing. The University of Chicago Law Review, 87(7), 1799-1844.

Simonson, J. (2019). The place of the people in criminal procedure. Columbia Law Review, 119(1), 249-308.

Tyler, C. (2020). The adjudicative model of precedent. The University of Chicago Law Review, 87(6), 1551-1604.

The American legal system differs from other legal systems in the world. For understanding its structure and order, it may be useful to have insight into the legal proceedings. This paper aims to discuss the procedure and function of the jury trial. It will cover its primary stages, describe the importance of choosing the right way to deliver the speech, and mention the courtrooms contents. Some observations concerning the process, court personnel, and the atmosphere prevailing in the courtroom will also be made.

The jury trial is a highly structured and orderly process that plays a crucial role in the American legal system. It consists of several steps: choosing a jury, opening statements, witness testimony and cross-examination, closing arguments, jury instruction, jury deliberation, and verdict. This paper will cover the first few steps of the process. The recording of the Stradapedes case, provided by the United States Court, gives the general idea of the procedure (Stragapede v. City of Evanston). In the opening statement, the attorney provides a brief account of the case in hand. This step appears to be significant because it gives the first impression of the case. It is noteworthy that the opening statement has its own rules and order, which is to be restored. For instance, the lawyers speech should not be excessively long, as it gives an outline of the case. Moreover, no arguments should be present in this part of the process.

The first thing that attracts ones attention is the way the defense attorney delivers his speech. One should notice the power of conviction and eloquence, with which he gives the opening statement (Stragapede v. City of Evanston, 00:29:45  00:44:00). His speech is not a monotonous one but gets the attention of everyone present in the courtroom. It has a clear question and answer structure: the defense lawyer poses the question Why? several times during his speech and responds it himself (Stragapede v. City of Evanston, 00:34:49). This way of giving an opening statement appears to be far more intriguing and impressive than a simple monologue. Moreover, the attorney provides documents to back up his comments and makes several references, which makes his speech even more credible (Stragapede v. City of Evanston, 00:31:31). The repetitions of some of the crucial statements are also used to enhance the impact. These expressive means seem to be a powerful tool in convincing the listeners and exerting a strong influence.

During the witness testimony, the prosecuting lawyer conducts the direct examination of one of the witnesses. In this stage of the procedure, evidence can be introduced by the prosecutor. In the process of the examination, the testifier provides short answers to the attorneys questions (Stragapede v. City of Evanston, 00:44:24-01:10:59). The witness is not expected to give detailed answers but says yes or no. It is worth noting that the questions may be controversial and complicated. One of the difficulties answering them lies in the formulation, as it may be categorical. The testifier is supposed to respond immediately and without hesitation, which also puts pressure on them. Sometimes questions may be unclear to the testifier, and, in this case, they are allowed to ask to repeat them. Taking into consideration all the details of the witness testimony, the general atmosphere seems to be strained.

One can observe that the courtroom is equipped with everything which is needed during the trial. It can be seen from the video that audiovisual technology, such as monitors and microphones, is also present in the courtroom to allow everyone present to see exhibits and hear speakers. This equipment appears to be useful as it facilitates the process and enables the implementation of modern technologies in the process of a jury trial.

Judging from the fragment of the recorded case, the proceeding in question serves justice. In the beginning, the judge reads the rules, which are to be followed, aloud (Stragapede v. City of Evanston, 00:00:10-00:10:59). The prescribed order seems to be kept, all the formalities observed. Furthermore, each step of the proceeding, responses, all the statements were recorded in written form. This documentation of the process provides further evidence that the order was preserved, and the rules were not disregarded. It is worth mentioning that, in the first place, the floor was given to the prosecutor party, as the order prescribes, and then to the defense party. It is also apparent that the rules of conduct during the jury trial were not violated. It seems to make the whole process of the jury trial fair and equal for all parties.

In conclusion, the recorded process of the jury trial seems to be useful for understanding the American legal system. It allows one to get insight into the structure and order of legal proceedings in the USA and learn more about its distinctive features. In addition, this recording illustrates how the American judicial system works from the inside and shows which role each stage and component of the process plays in the trial procedure.

Work Cited

Stragapede v. City of Evanston (Part 1), Case Number 12-CV-8879, Americans with Disabilities Act- Jury Trial, 3/09/2015, 9:00 AM (CST), Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, Chicago, Illinois, Judge Edmond Chang presiding. United States Courts. 

Since the genesis of the US judicial system, the notion of the Supreme Court has always been one of the major bodies of justice and law implementation. Although the impartiality and promptness of the Supreme Court can barely be objected to, there is an ongoing debate on the correlation between public opinion and the decision-making process in Court. Thus, it concludes that US citizens are either unaware of their civil rights or experience ignorance of the judicial system, making the latter argument more reasonable considering the reality.

Thus, the following papers first point is the establishment of a correlation between the Supreme Court and the public as it is supposed to appear in terms of legal considerations. Another issue to be tackled is the extent to which this relationship should be exercised in the best-case scenario, claiming that this standard has been severely undermined. Finally, it should be mentioned the overall mention of public opinion is considered in extreme cases of public pressure on the hearing process.

The target audience that would consider the issue relevant is imitated neither to age nor to the social status. Since the very genesis of social structure across the state, active public participation in federal affairs has been predetermined by law. Thus, every active citizen of the US would be interested in defining how their relationship with the Supreme Court should have been legally built.

When speaking of the end goal of the following paper, it should be mentioned that raising peoples awareness is only a minor step on the way of establishing a proper relationship in the judicial-public paradigm. Thus, the primary aim of the discussion is to draw peoples attention to the aspect of their citizenship that is frequently ignored. In the best-case scenario, after acquaintance with the information, fellow residents will start to ask themselves what they could do to influence the current state of affairs.

One of the major primary sources for the discussion will be the statistical data recorded in terms of the SCOTUSpoll research held in association with Harvard University (Supreme Court Public Opinion Project, 2020). The following poll displays the public opinion on the matters currently relevant to the Supreme Court. To appeal to the already analyzed facts, the secondary study on the interrelation between these results and the Supreme Courts decisions might be considered (Bryan, 2020).

Considering the sources introduced above, the major point outlined in the paper will concern the discrepancy present in the public opinion and the Supreme Courts decision-making process. In fact, the discrepancy can be adequate when the decision itself is made impartially, but the following patterns of decision-making are extremely dependent on the leading partys preferences and outlook. Another point of discussion concerns the overall interdependence of public outlook with the cases reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The evidence found in terms of the research work has revealed the actual opinion of the US public on relevant matters such as the LGBTQ+ communitys rights and justification of the police brutality. Hence, the aspect of public intervention in the process of decision-making will be contrasted by the opinion prevailing in the society. As a result, the publicity will become well-aware of the reality of social influence on the judicial work within the state.

References

ACLED. (2020). Demonstrations & political violence in America: new data for summer 2020. Web.

Bryan, A. C. (2020). Public opinion and setting the agenda on the US Supreme Court. American Politics Research, 48(3), 377-390.

Mazumder, S. (2018). The persistent effect of US civil rights protests on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 922-935.

Supreme Court Public Opinion Project. (2020). Web.

Introduction

The current U.S. Constitution is one of the oldest in the world. It reflects the fundamental ideas of federalism, separation of powers, the system of checks and balances, and judicial constitutional control, which formed the basis of the state system and the legal and economic systems of the USA. However, for a long time in the global and domestic legal literature, the issue of the role of the Supreme Court in U.S. economic issues has been viewed in a very biased and prejudiced manner. However, high-profile U.S. Supreme Court decisions have underscored the role and importance of the Constitution and underpinned many economic tendencies.

Discussion

The first example is Marbury v. Madison, often called the most critical case in Supreme Court history. This case has an indirect impact on the economic system. Still, it introduced the principle of judicial review and the supreme power of the Court to determine the constitutionality of acts. The case arose from a political controversy after the 1800 presidential election in which Democrat-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated then-Federalist John Adams for the presidency (Butts, 2019). The new Secretary of State in President Jeffersons Administration, James Madison, refused to serve papers of appointment because the new Administration was outraged that the Federalists had attempted to infiltrate members of their party into the judicial branch.

The decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) was a turning point in judicial expansion and the Courts shift to a vigorous defense of federalism. Although, in this case, Marshall pragmatically avoided a confrontation with the Administration, and the Administration formally prevailed by not granting a federalist patent to Marbury, Marshall secured the power of constitutional review for the Court (Butts, 2019). The decision emphasizes the supreme legal force of the Constitution over common law, which undoubtedly affects the nature of the resolution of any economic disputes or the validity of regulations concerning all spheres, including economics.

Another U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London (2005) addressed the right of the state to compulsorily alienate land owned by a private person to another private person to ensure future economic development. By a five to four vote, the justices found that the common good of a community that would benefit from successful economic activity allowed a private redevelopment plan to be considered a public need (Kemper, 2019). After obtaining a court-ordered tract of land, the private developer could not raise the financial resources for his project and had to leave the land vacant.

The case demonstrates that the economic reform movement, political solutions, and legal procedures complement each other. The failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to protect property rights has led to a corresponding reaction from the public and state legislators (Kemper, 2019). Thus, human rights activists are flexible and choose the most beneficial strategy in the current situation. Having analyzed the legislative innovations following the Kelo vs. New London decision, one can conclude that many of them were carried out not to protect private property but in the interests of developers.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that Marbury v. Madison is a fundamental case in establishing the Constitutions supremacy. It, in turn, has led to the necessity for the compulsory adaptation of economic norms to the general laws of the country and, thereby, to the improvement of economic relations. At the same time, Kelo vs. New London, despite its narrow focus on property rights, is a case that regulates the question of public use, which is an essential step in promoting the general purpose.

References

Butts, D. R. (2019). A theoretic analysis of Marbury v. Madison: The origins of judicial review. James Blair Historical Review, 9(2), 2.

Kemper, E. (2019). Private use of eminent domain. FAU Undergraduate Law Journal, 9(4), 114-114.

The Post-Charter Canada has given the Courts “teeth” in the realm of the political atmosphere and started a dialogue with the government in regards to legislation. Due to the array of issues the Charter has dealt with, and how the courts interpret the writer’s intent; the Supreme Court of Canada’s involvement in public political matters has increased, empowering and having expectations of the courts to pass judgment on their merit and take on more of an activist responsibility in a position that traditionally was expected to be an unbiased enforcement of the written law. Upon reflection, it holds truth that the Dialogue Theory is an accurate measure of exchange between the courts and the legislature.

The Dialogue Theory is an abstract concept of reasoned dialogue between the courts and legislature on the application, interpretation of, and creation of laws. The Dialogue Theory is often seen as the Supreme Court of Canada interpreting, and the government following. However, as Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell outline in their article on Charter Dialogue, the reasoning can be justified as judicial decisions are open to legislative reversal, modification, or avoidance (Hogg, and Bushell, 1997, p. 79). As the Charter values are interpreted by judges, but were made in the interest of the public represented by the legislature, there needs to be meaningful regards for the relationship between these two powers. Hogg and Bushell go on to say that “The legislative body is in a position to devise a response that is properly respectful of the Charter values that have been identified by the Court, but which accomplishes the social or economic objectives that the judicial decision” (Hogg, and Bushell, 1997, p.79). If the relationship between the Court and legislative bodies are congruent with one another then in an optimistic view society could be in more unison.

Scholarly debate over the relevancy of the Dialogue Theory comes with compelling arguments on both sides, those who disagree with the Dialogue Theory like F.L. Morton, who, and in their view, feel the relationship between Legislature and the Court is more on a monologue than a dialogue. Mortan believes real dialogue is not a legitimate means for changing laws, and the only way the legislature has grounds to put forth their voice is by S.33, the Notwithstanding Clause, as he scrutinizes the meaning of dialogue. He uses a sandwich methodology in comparison with what dialogue is, “If I go to a restaurant, order a sandwich, and the waiter brings me the sandwich I ordered, I would not count this as a “dialogue” (Mortan, 1999. P. 24). “What is described as dialogue is actually a monologue and judges making the rules and or changing them and legislature following their lead.”, (Mortan, 1999. P. 26);

Creating judicial activism with no response paralyzes the legislature as an institutional character that is not in a position to legitimately interpret the Constitution. At the core, the debate over the legitimacy by those who oppose the Dialogue Theory is in theory the objective of the courts and the legislature that having a voice is healthy and is a morally sound idea. However, in practice, policies implemented may infringe on laws and affect cases; While Dialogue is an attractive theory, it fails in practice (Macfarlan 2012.P 52).

Despite the reserves about the Dialogue Theory, the judicial decision struck down laws that infringed on individuals’ rights and the Constitution. S.33 or legislative override is relatively unimportant, due to political resistance. Further, the fact that S.33 is a “sunsets clause”, (only lasting five years) when it expires a new government may be in power effectively making the bill null and void if not reinstated. Quebec has made the only relevant use of S.33 and gained political acceptance at the time. Ford v. Quebec (A.G),in 1988 is when Quebec used S.33 to override the judicial decision. Quebec enacted a new sign law, Bill 101, that banned the use of any language but French in all outdoor sings (but still allowing bilingual indoor signs) (Thomas, Hiebert, Knopff, & Russell, 2017. P 56), The Supreme Court of Canada could acknowledge the importance of preserving the French language at a time when English is nationally predominant, however the courts argued that the position of balance should be struck as “freedom of expression” of a person’s language is part of an identity. The courts felt under Section 1, “maintaining the predominantly French character of Quebec could justify requiring the use of French on a joint-use basis and even a law requiring the “marked predominance” of the French language. However, it saw no evidence justifying the exclusive use of French.” (Thomas, Hiebert, Knopff, & Russell, 2017. P 57). The court’s response was not only respectful but informative, it provides documentation of the communication and understanding the courts have for political parities. Interestingly enough, no political body was in favour of the Notwithstanding Clause, PM Trudeau didn’t like it be because it violated his sense of justice, while PM Mulroney stated it was not worth the paper it was written on (N. P. 2018). However, S.33 does provide protection for judicial decisions and encourages dialogue between legislature and the courts. While S.33 is used infrequently it is part of the Charter as well as part of the dialogue structure.

Another element of the Charter that encourages dialogue between legislature and the courts is Section 1 of the Charter, the “Reasonable Limits” clause. Section 1 allows for an expanded role for legislature, as the legislature can provide perspectives regarding competing social interest with pre-existing laws and could provide justification on infringement of a right. Carissima Mathen believes there are two reasons S.1 improves dialogue, “ The first reason is that a Section 1 analysis requires information that the courts often will not possess, but the legislature will. The second reason is that the very existence of Section 1 means that the legislature has a unique role too.” (Mathen, 2007. P 135). In the case of R. v. Mills, it is evident that the use of Section 1 creates dialogue between legislature and the courts. The case is regarding Bill C-46, a legislative bill passed to amend the Criminal Code, including offences pertaining to sexual violence against women and children. The issue with the case was that the bill violates the principles of fundamental justice (Thomas, Hiebert, Knopff, & Russell, 2017. P 176 Section 15). The fundamental justices infringed upon from the case included the right to answer and defend and the right to privacy, because a defense lawyer can cross examine an alleged sexual assault victim. However, no single principle is absolute and no principle can triumph over another, it is all dependent on the compelling claims. Section 1 of the Charter asks the question of whether a law passed infringes on any other section of the Charter and if the infringement is justified under a “reasonable limit”. This case used dialogue in regards to how the Parliament passed this bill and the courts said it infringed on certain rights. The courts told the legislature what to change in the bill in a very suggestive manner, and they did! Section 1 is a great representation of dialogue and compromise between the judicial and political sides of Canada, that can accomplish important objectives and sufficient understandings on limitations of the Charter. The Bill wasn’t justified under Section 1, and suggestion was made for a change.

Overall, the Charter is a unique constitutional right that provides democratic legitimacy and equality, the Supreme Court of Canada is a non-elected body that predicts the framer’s intent and interprets the law, it is a benefit for the legislators, who are elected and provide representation of citizens to have a voice and implement political interest and social interest into judicial decision with Dialogue between the two. Judges struck down statues and enacted politician’s bills that don’t infringe on the Charter, they enable responsibility and accountability on their own and in the representative legislative bodies; However, judges leave room for response and legislative opinions. The courts do not hold a monopoly on the protection and promotion of rights and freedoms. The Dialogue Theory not only encompasses the Charter and the intent of equality and moral standing, but accomplishes communication and understanding as well as dialogue, thereby enabling both elected and appointed representatives of Canada to fulfill their responsibility to its citizens.

References list

1. Hogg, Peter W. and Bushell, Allison A… (1997) ‘The Charter Dialogue between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing after All).’ Osgoode Hall Law Journal
2. Macfarlane Emmett, 2012. “Dialogue or compliance? Measuring legislatures’ policy responses to court rulings on rights” International Political Science Review, SAGA.
3. Mathen, C. (2007). Dialogue theory, judicial review, and judicial supremacy: comment on charter dialogue revisted. Osgoode Hall Law Journal 45(1), 125-146.
4. Morton F.L, 1999. “DIALOGUE OR MONOLOGUE?”, OPTIONS POLITIQUES. AVRIL. P 1-4
5. R. v, Mills (1999] 3 S.C.R. 668 at 711-12. )
6. Thomas M.J. Bateman, Janet L. Hiebert, Rainer Knopff, Peter H. Russell. (2017) “The Court and the Charter, leading cases, second edition” Toronto, Canada. Emond Montgomery Publications Limited.( 56-57)
7. Thomas M.J. Bateman, Janet L. Hiebert, Rainer Knopff, Peter H. Russell. (2017) “The Court and the Charter, leading cases, second edition” Toronto, Canada. Emond Montgomery Publications Limited.( 176)
8. View, N. P. (2018, September 14). NP View: The notwithstanding clause was made exactly for times like this. Retrieved from https://nationalpost.com/opinion/0915-ed-editorial