Lord In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes, …show more content…
Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979) The appellant court held that it was not. According to rule 404 under the Federal Rules of Evidence, “evidence of a person 's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait”. Fed. R. Evid. 404 Under this rule the evidence of Reyes prior convictions admitted by the trial court, “purpose of showing that he was intoxicated on the night that he was run over by defendant-appellee 's train” proves to be inadmissible under Rule 404(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 792 (5th Cir. 1979) The courts due mention the exceptions on the admission of character evidence. However the court did not use the evidence of Reyes past drunkenness to prove some other criminal purpose. Since the trial court failed to do the latter, and instead entered evidence on the basis of character to prove that the plaintiff acted in accordance with his character trait during the night in question, it went against the modern rules set out in FRE 404 and is therefore …show more content…
In their conclusion the Appellate court reasoned that the argument of Reyes drunkenness by the defense as a form of habit carried little weight. They agree that there is no exact formula for establishing habit. However they do hold it to a standard of “uniformity of response”. Meaning the defendant needed to prove in order to result to habit evidence that “intoxication on a given occasion depends on the degree of regularity of the practice and its coincidence with the occasion”. Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 589 F.2d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 1979) They concluded that four instances over a period of approximately four years could not constitute as or satisfy the requirements for establishing
Judge Fahey felt that affidavits provided by Dascoli’s mother and ex- girlfriend in support of Dascoli were weak and insubstantial, as well as not credible given the fact the defendant had the opportunity to advise Kelly of first aggressor evidence failed to do so. Additionally, in reference to an affidavit written by a medical expert, Fahey states that his conclusion was “without sufficient factual basis, and is, at best, conjecture and
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006).
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
In United States v. Alvarez, Xavier Alvarez claimed that he was a retired marine who had received the Congressional Medal of Honor in 1987 for being wounded repeatedly by the same person in combat. These claims were made in an attempt to have him gain more respect from his peers. The claim was that Alvarez had violated the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 states that there are protections against claiming to have received some type of military honor, such as the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards (GovTrack). The Government stated that there was first amendment value applicable to Alvarez’s false statements, and that his statements caused harm to others. By making this statement, it was argued that the value of the award of Honor would drop and that this type of false speech falls under the same category as speaking falsely on behalf of the government or as a government official. However, since his statements were not made with the intention of financial benefits or special treatment, his false claims may not be illegal because they were made for the purpose of gaining respect.
Federal Rule of Evidence 404 deals with the admissibility of character evidence. FRE 404(a)(1) lists the prohibited uses of character evidence, and states that “Evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.”1 This concept of “propensity character evidence” has been defined as the use of evidence at trial of either a person's character or a person's trait of character to prove that he or she has a tendency to act in a specific manner.2 Thus, if a person has a tendency to act in a certain way, it's more likely than not that the person acted in conformance with that tendency while committing a bad act.
...'t show that it was of the victims. The court ruled that extensive discovery requirements for future proceedings, including copies of lab results and reports; explanation of statistical calculations; explanations of any observed contaminants; and chain of custody documents (PBS, 1996) . These recommendations where soon expanded in the Minnesota Supreme Court case Schwartz v. State.