Texas V. Palmer Summary

Definition: translates to “friend of the court;” the filing of briefs or appearing to argue their interests orally before the court

Does your team feel this defendant is competent to stand trial? Why or why not?

Municipal Court % Appealed Karla Grady John A. West Deidra Hair James Patrick Kenney Mark Painter Dennis Helmick David Stockdale Melba

On petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit

Do your constitutional rights protect you from state laws? In 1989 Texas v. Johnson, Johnson had burned an American flag and Texas state law protects the American flag from being burned when the flag burner knows it will seriously offend others. Johnson was then arresting and tried, then the case went all the way to the Supreme court. Johnson claimed he was expressing his right to free speech. Flag burning conveyed a political message. Preserving the flag was related to the suppression of expression. There was no breach of peace. Johnson burning the flag was indeed free speech and he is protected by the 1st Amendment in this instance.

FACTS -- Subsequent to a failed attempt from the plaintiff to appeal and receive the right to a trial, Harold Caldwell filed a bill of review for a case that was decided with his absence due to a dearth of convenient notification. The contrasting party, Robert Barnes, declared that he hired private process server DeWayne Perdew, to deliver the summon to Caldwell and that the decision made by the lower courts is correct. The decision of lower courts was made during a pretrial hearing, denying Caldwell a trial.

“The Jury Selection Process” is a research paper that reviews the jury selection process in detail. First we will review the stages of the criminal trail and go in depth with the jury selection process. The paper will demonstrate why the jury selection process is necessary for the United States as well as its patrons. The paper will also provide a break down of advantages and disadvantages on the jury selection process. In addition to the information listed above, we will review some large profile court cases and its jury selection process. This will determine just how detailed and challenging the process can prove to

Me: “On the plaintiff side, Sandra and all of her kids deposed. Dr. DeVere White’s lawyer is the one who questions them under oath. His name is Mr. Tom Minder. On the defendant side, Dr.DeVere White is the only one who deposed. He was questioned by Mr. Kelly.”

Those observing from outside including the defense, thought Judge Jones presiding over the case would be advantageous to the defense because of his conservative affiliations. He was nominated to the District Court by President George Bush on the recommendation of Arlen Spencer and Rick Santorum. It is well noted that Conservatives are strong proponents for religion. Also, Rick Santorum, a Jones’s ally, has strong ties to the Catholic religion. It must have been tempting for Jones, who is conservative, and connected to Rick Santorum, to rule closer to the grounds of his allegiance despite his oath to ruling objectively. However, after reading the opinion of the Kitzmiller case, it is apparent that he tosses those connections to the side and allowed the facts and law to dictate the outcome. The lengthy opinion written by the Judge showed a thorough legal analysis. The approach used would make those who agree or disagree with the ruling see that he did not infuse his personal policy in the decision making, and respect the logical reasoning used in the

In Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science, Dennis Devine provides a thorough examination of empirical literature related to the factors shaping juror and jury decision making and proposes a comprehensive theoretical approach to understanding the complex processes involved. Devine is an assistant professor with the Department of Psychology at Indiana University—Purdue University at Indianapolis with an expertise in jury decision-making practices. This text is a response to research and theoretical models of juror- and jury-level decision making that provide valuable insight but lack an integrative approach. As such, the purpose of this text is to examine extant research and theoretical perspectives and to consolidate this information

-United States v. Hill (S.D. Tex., sentenced May 2004); FTC v. Hill (S.D. Tex., preliminary injunction December 2003)

Impartiality is said to be achieved during the random selection process of the jury empanelment as well as through the courts ability to exclude a person on the basis of their awareness of a particular person involved in or a witness in the case.

Expert witnesses can play various roles, such as a consultant who is a non-testifying expert (FRE 701); an expert witness, who has allegiance is to the data/research(FRE 702); and a fact witness, whose testimony on personal knowledge, not opinion(FRE 602). The nature of the Expert’s role during litigation is objective, that is, it is neutral. The expert should help the fact finder reach a better-informed decision. Expert witnesses must follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, specifically FRE 702-705. A consulting expert does not testify in court, therefore, they do not need to meet the qualifications of Daubert and Frye. The consulting expert’s advocates and advise lawyers while

Herring v Boyle (1834) 1 CM&R; 6 Car&P; 4 Tyr 801; 3 LJ Ex 344

The Special Discovery Master also informed the trial court that the Simerlys ' counsel and Pulte 's counsel had provided conflicting statements relating to Pulte 's removal of discovery documents during a May 2009 document review at Pulte 's offices. At a subsequent hearing before the trial court, Simerlys ' counsel, Michael Carvalho, testified that he and an associate attorney, Christine Westberg, had a scheduled document review at Pulte 's offices in May 2009. Carvalho testified