Intro to Law and Legal System Midterm Review

Voir Dire

"to see to speak". The questioning of prospective jurors by a judge (federal) and attorneys (state) in court. It is used to determine if any juror is biased and/or cannot deal with the issues fairly, or if there is cause not to allow a juror to serve (knowledge of the facts; acquaintanceship with parties, witnesses or attorneys; occupation which might lead to bias; prejudice against the death penalty; or previous experiences such as having been sued in a similar case).

Gideon v. Wainwright

- Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief - Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? - Yes. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered the opinion of the 9-0 majority. The Supreme Court held that the framers of the Constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.

Richmond v. Iowa

- clergy privilege - Richmond was speaking to a priest at a church as a marriage counselor and not a priest so the priest/clergy privilege is void. Privilege was not admitted because priest talked about marriage counsel, not religious.

Idnani et al. v. Venus Capital Management

- compliance with discovery order; sanctions - Legal Issue: Should a defendent be sanctioned for destroyed evidence that should have been disclosed to the plaintiff to the rules of discovery?He was fully aware that he had to preserve records when he made the decision to destroy thousands of pages of documents Alternative sources for the information and how important the information would have been to the P are key in determining the level of prejudice created - HOLDING: He cannot go without sanction, some relative information could have been lost, and the conduct was intentional and in bad faith D shall pay all attorney fees and costs of plaintiff. His conduct will be introduced as evidence to the court

Katko v. Briney

- distinguish civil action from criminal action - The issue was whether an owner may protect personal property in an unoccupied boarded-up farmhouse against trespassers and thieves by a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury. This did not involve a man's right to protect his home and members of his family. The court decided that under law punitive damages are not allowed as a matter of right. When malice is shown or when a defendant acted with wanton and reckless disregard of the rights of others, punitive damages may be allowed as punishment to the defendant and as a deterrent to others. Study and careful consideration of the defendants' contentions on appeal reveal no reversible error.

Washington v. Glucksberg

- due process - Dr. Harold Glucksberg - along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients who have since died, and a nonprofit organization that counsels individuals contemplating physician assisted suicide - brought this suit challenging the state of Washington's ban of physician assisted-suicide. This State of Washington has historically criminalized the promotion of suicide attempts by those who "knowingly cause or aid another person to attempt suicide." Glucksberg alleged that Washington's ban was unconstitutional. Following a District Court ruling favoring Glucksberg and his fellow petitioners, the Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court granted Washington certiorari. - The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be offensive to our national traditions and practices. Moreover, employing a rationality test, the Court held that Washington's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, shielding disabled and terminally ill people from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and above all, the preservation of human life.

Suggs v. Norris

- implied contract; quantum meruit - The question is whether public policy forbids the recovery by a plaintiff partner to an unmarried bu cohabiting or meretricious relationship, from the other partner's estate for services rendered to or benefits conferred upon the other partner through the plaintiff's work in the operation of a joint business when the business, proceeds were utilized to enrich the estate of the deceased partner.The Court found that the evidence clearly established a set of facts sufficient to have submitted a quasi-contractual issue to the jury and from which the jury could have inferred a mutual understanding between plaintiff and the decedent that she would be remunerated for her services. Plaintiff's efforts conferred many years of benefits on the decedent who by all accounts willingly accepted those benefits. Because the evidence viewed was clearly sufficient to permit the jury to find a mutual understanding between plaintiff and decedent that the plaintiff's work in the produce business was not free of charge and because plaintiff's work in the business was not of the character usually found to be performed gratuitously, the defendant's Motions for Directed Verdict and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict were denied. No error was found

Miller v. Alabama

- incarceration of minors; 8th amendment issues - In July 2003, Evan Miller, along with Colby Smith, killed Cole Cannon by beating Cannon with a baseball bat and burning Cannon's trailer while Cannon was inside. Miller was 14 years old at the time. In 2004, Miller was transferred from the Lawrence County Juvenile Court to Lawrence County Circuit Court to be tried as an adult for capital murder during the course of an arson. In 2006, a grand jury indicted Miller. At trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial court sentenced Miller to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - Miller filed a post trial motion for a new trial, arguing that sentencing a 14-year-old to life without the possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision. The Supreme Court of Alabama denied Miller's petition for writ of certiorari. - In the companion case, petitioner Kuntrell Jackson, along with Derrick Shields and Travis Booker, robbed a local movie store in Blytheville, Arkansas in November, 1999. The three boys were 14 years old at the time. While walking to the store, Jackson discovered that Shields was hiding a shotgun in his coat. During the robbery, Shields shot the store clerk and the three boys fled the scene. Jackson was tried and convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery in July, 2003. The trial court sentenced Jackson to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. - In January 2008, Jackson filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus in circuit court. He argued that his sentence was unusual and excessive, violating his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The circuit court dismissed the petition and Jackson appealed. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the lower court's decision.

Speelman v. Bellingham Housing Authority

- issues of case; parties to the suit - Speelman contested the termination of her family's Section 8 housing subsidy. After considering the unique circumstances of the case, the court held that notice was adequate. The Court decided that Speelman met the preliminary injunction criteria and the trial court erred by denying Speelman's motion for a preliminary injunction. They reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Fontenot v. Taser International

- remittitur and additur - Tammy is the plaintiff of the case in which her son was fired by a grocery store and then tased when the police showed up. After suing the grocery store she sued the taser company in which she was awarded $10 million. The Taser international said this was excessive and wanted the case reheard. The judge denied a retrial but granted a partial remittitur of $5,491,503.

Johnson v. Cintas Corporation & United Healthcare

- service of process; default judgment - The issue is that the plaintiff served the wrongly named defendant. Johnson sued the parent company Cintas rather than Cintas No. 2. This is a fundamental defect and the case would have been void because the court does not have jurisdiction.

Dorsey v. Gregg

- service of process; default judgment (discussed in class; case not in the text) - In this case the plaintiff was awarded a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant sought to vacate the default judgment because the trail court lacked jurisdiction over his person due to the inadequacy of the service. He was a member of a fraternity but did not reside at the fraternity house. No attempt was made to serve defendant at his residence even though his address was available from the university. Dorsey says the members of the fraternity where Gregg was supposed to live were covering up for him and acting like he had not ate or slept there in years. Reversed said that they were wrong and sent back to trial court to record what they wanted. Because they were insufficient to support alternative service under ORCP.

State of Utah v. Timmerman

- spousal privilege - Travis Timmerman was charged with attempted rape, forcible sexual abuse and assault. Use Mrs. Timmerman's previous statements to police and to a sexual assault nurse. - Ask to consider whether the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and Utah Constitution apply to preliminary hearings and whether the spousal testimonial privilege embodied in the Utah Constitution applies to spouse's voluntary out of court statements. - Ms. Timmerman was asked by Officer McLelland to fill out a three page statement were she wrote that Mr. Timmerman hit her and tried to force her into intercourse. Nurse recorded the same thing. Mr. Timmerman was charged with attempted rape, and sexual abuse. At the hearing Mrs. Timmerman uses her spousal privlege not to testify against him. District court said that confrontation rights under the federal and state constitution do not apply to preliminary hearings and out of court statements. So then Mr. Timmerman appeals.. Using 6th ammendment of constitution and utah constiution. 2 for utah 1.) Spousal testimonial privilege: which he can use that she doesn't have to testify if it is her spouse 2.) Spousal Communications privilege: don't have to talk about stuff in their marriage but if charged with a crime can't use this one. - Says should not be able to use spousal testimonial privilege either because it was an out of court statement and the fact "absures to silence their victims". Her statements and sexual assault examination was voluntary. Deny the appeal and Mr. Timmerman charges stay

Salmon v. Atkinson

- termination of contract; contingency fees - Quantum meruit may be recovered to an attorney who had a contingent fee contract with a client but was discharged before the end of the trial because it is unfair for an attorney to get paid for skill of new attorney, contingency fee no longer exists, implied promise for services- if client did not pay for services that would be unjust enrichment

Remittitur

1.) a judge's order reducing a judgement awarded by a jury when the award exceeds the amount asked for by the plaintiff (person who brought the suit). 2.) an appeal's transmittal of a case back to the trial court so that the case can be retried, or an order entered consistent with the appeals court's decision (such as dismissing the plaintiff's case or awarding costs to the winning party on appeal).

Affidavit

1.) any written document in which the signer swears under oath before a notary public or someone authorized to take oaths (like a County Clerk), that the statements in the document are true. 2.) in many states a declaration under penalty of perjury, which does not require the oath-taking before a notary, is the equivalent.

Counterclaims

A defendant's claim against the plaintiff, which is usually included in the answer; it is essentially a defendant's "complaint"

Directed Verdict

A determination by a jury made at the direction of the court, in cases where there has been a failure of evidence, an overwhelming weight of the evidence or where the law as applied to the facts permits only one result.

Contracts

A legally enforceable agreement containing one or more promises.

Discovery

A method by which the opposing parties to a lawsuit may obtain fall and exact factual information concerning the entire area of their controversy, via pretrial depositions, interrogations, requests for admissions, inspection of books and documents, physical and mental examinations, interrogatories (written) and inspection of land or other property. The purpose of these pretrial procedures is to disclose the genuine points of factual dispute and facilitate adequate preparation for trial. Either party may compel the other party to disclose the relevant facts that are in his or her possession, prior to the trial.

Motion for Relief from Judgement

A motion for relief from judgement is granted only if the judge finds a clerical error in the judgement, newly discovered evidence, or that fraud induced the judgement.

Motion for Judgement Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)

A motion made after a jury verdict is returned. It is granted when the judge decides that reasonable people could not have reached the verdict that the jury has reached. The acronym "JNOV" comes from the Latin phrase for a judgement non obstante veridictu.

Motion for Directed Verdict

A motion made by the defendant at the end of all the evidence. The motion is granted if the court concludes that evidence favors one side to such an extent that no reasonable juror could find in favor of the other party. This motion is not available to the prosecution in a criminal case but is available to criminal defendants.

Motion for Summary Judgement

A motion made to dispose of controversies that can be decided without a full trial because either no genuine issues of material fact exist or because facts necessary to prove the opponent's case are not provable. Most Judges are reluctant to do this, lack of due process.

Reply

A pleading in which the plaintiff admits, denies, or raises defenses against the factual allegations raised in the defendant's counterclaim.

Directed Verdict

A verdict by a jury based on the specific directions by a trial judge that they must bring in that verdict because one of the parties has not proved his/her/its case as a matter of law (failed to present credible testimony on some key element of the claim or of the defense).

Subpoena Duces Tecum

A writ requiring that a witness appear in court with a document that is in his or her possession.

Quantum Meruit

As much as he or she deserves. An equitable means for determining what sum is due where there is no actual agreement between parties but where fairness requires that a contract be implied in order to avoid an unjust enrichment.

Motion to Recuse:

Motion to get a new judge for a trial. Due bias or compromising statements made by a judge

Mala prohibita

Offenses prohibited by law but not wrong in themselves. Ex. Trespassing

Mala in se

Offenses that are wrong by their very nature. Ex. Murder, Rape, Battery

Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer)

Sometimes also called a demurer or, in federal law. A "Rule 12(b) motion." A motion used to challenge claimed defects in the plaintiff's complaint.

Motion for New Trial

This motion may be granted by a judge for a variety of reasons, including excessive or grossly inadequate damages, newly discovered evidence, questionable jury verdict, errors in the production of evidence, or simply in the interest of justice.

Writ of Summons

Usually served on the defendant at the same time as service of the complaint, the writ of summons (or simply the summons) warns the defendant that a default judgement can be awarded to the plaintiff unless the defendant responds with a pleading (usually an answer) within a specified period of time.

Summary Judgment

a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried. The motion is supported by declarations under oath, excerpts from depositions which are under oath, admissions of fact and other discovery, as well as a legal argument (points and authorities), that argue that there are no triable issues of fact and that the settled facts require a summary judgment for the moving party. The opposing party will respond by counter-declarations and legal arguments attempting to show that there are "triable issues of fact." If it is unclear whether there is a triable issue of fact in any cause of action, then summary judgment must be denied as to that cause of action. The theory behind the summary judgment process is to eliminate the need to try settled factual issues and to decide without trial one or more causes of action in the complaint. The pleading procedures are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous to the party against whom the motion is made.

Compromise Verdict

a decision made by a jury in which the jurors split the difference between the high amount of damages which one group of jurors feel is justified and the low amount other jurors favor. Since this is a "chance" verdict not computed on a careful determination of the damages, it may do an injustice to one party or the other, and is this misconduct, which can result in an appeals court overturning the verdict.

Reversible Error

a legal mistake at the trial court level which is so significant (resulted in an improper judgement) that the judgement must be reversed by the appellate court. A reversible error is distinguished from an error which is minor or did not contribute to the judgment at the trial.

Pre-Trial Conference

a meeting of the parties to a case conducted prior to trial. It is held before the trial judge or a magistrate, a judicial officer who possesses fewer judicial powers than a judge. It alos may be requested by a party to a case, or it may be ordered by the court.

Summons

a paper that tells a defendant that he is being sued in a specific court that the plaintiff believes has jurisdiction.

Defense

a statement of defence raising an objection in point of law to the effect that the facts alleged, even if established, do not disclose a good cause of action. A denial of the plaintiff's claim; an allegation of counterclaim; a confession and avoidance.

Demurrer

a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. A hearing before a judge (on the law and motion calendar) will then be held to determine the validity of the demurrer. Some causes of action may be defeated by a demurrer while others may survive. Some demurrers contend that the complaint is unclear or omits an essential element of fact. If the judge finds these errors, he/she will usually sustain the demurrer (state it is valid), but "with leave to amend" in order to allow changes to make the original complaint good. An amendment to the complaint cannot always overcome a demurrer, as in a case filed after the time allowed by law to bring a suit. If after amendment the complaint is still not legally good, a demurrer will be granted sustained. In rare occasions, a demurrer can be used to attack an answer to a complaint. Some states have substituted a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action for the demurrer.

Quotient Verdict

an award of money damages se by a jury in a lawsuit in which each juror states in writing his/her opinion of what the amount should be. Then the amounts are totaled and divided by the number of jurors to reach a figure for the award. It is illegal and improper since it is based on guesses and not a rational discussion of the facts.

Subpoena

an order of the court for a witness to appear at a particular time and place to testify and/or produce documents in the control of the witness (if a "subpoena duces tecum"). It is used to obtain testimony from a witness at both depositions (testimony under oath taken outside of court) and at trial. Failure to appear as requested can be punished as contempt of court if it appears the absence was intentional or without cause.

Lien

any official claim or charge against property or funds for payment of a debt or an amount owed for services rendered. It is usually a formal document signed by the party to whom money is owed and sometimes by the debtor who agrees to the amount due.

Evidence

every type or proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matter, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial).

Default

failure to respond to a summons and complaint served on a party in the time required by law. If a legal answer or other response is not filed, the suing party (plaintiff) can request a default be entered in the record, which terminates the rights of the defaulting party to defend the case.

Default Judgment

if a defendant in a lawsuit fails to respond to a complaint in the time set by law (commonly 20 or 30 days), then the plaintiff (suer) can request that the default (failure) be entered into the court record by the clerk, which gives the plaintiff the right to get a default judgement. If the complaint was for a specific amount of money owed on a note, other money due, or a specific contract price (or if the amount due is easy to calculate) then the clerk of the court can enter a default judgement. If proof of damages or other relief is necessary, a hearing will be held in which the judge determines terms of the default judgment. In either case the defendant cannot speak for himself/herself. A defendant who fails to file an answer or other legal response when it is due can request that the default be set aside, but must show a legitimate excuse and a good defense to the lawsuit.

Partial Verdict

in a criminal trial, the result when the jury finds the defendant guilty of one or more charges but not guilty (or deadlocks) on one or more charges.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (Mediation)

the attempt to settle a legal dispute through active participation of a third party who works to find points of agreement and make those in conflict agree on a fair result. The third party acts much like a judge in an out-of-court, less formal setting but does not actively participate in the discussion.

Verdict

the decision of a jury after a trial, which must be accepted by the trial judge to be final. A judgement by a judge sitting without a jury is not a verdict.

Sealed Verdict

the decision of a jury when there is a delay in announcing the result, such as waiting for the judge, the parties and the attorneys to come back to court. The verdict is kept ina sealed envelope until handed to the judge when court reconvenes.

Garnishment of Wages

the entire process of petitioning for and getting a court order directing a person or entity (garnishee) to hold funds they owe to someone who allegedly is in debt to another person, often after a judgement has been rendered. Usually the actual amounts owed have not been figured out or are to be paid by installments directly or through the sheriff.

Service of Process

the general term for the legal document by which a lawsuit is started and the court asserts its jurisdiction over the parties and the controversy. In modern U.S. law, process is usually a summons. "You've been served". Typically a 30 day period to respond unless a default judgement is entered

Special Verdict

the jury's decisions or findings of fact with the application of the law to those facts left up to the judge who will then render the final verdict. This type of limited verdict is used when the legal issues to be applied are complex or require difficult computation.

Best Evidence Rule

the legal doctrine that an original piece of evidence, particularly a document, is a superior to a copy. If the original is available, a copy will not be allowed as evidence in a trial.

Venire

the list from which jurors may be selected.

Additur

the power of the trail court to assess damages or increase the amount of an inadequate award made by jury verdict, as a condition of a denial of a motion for a new trial, with the consent of the defendant whether or not the plaintiff consents to such action. This is not allowed in the federal system.

Exclusionary Rule

the rule that evidence secured by illegal means and in bad faith cannot be introduced in a criminal trial. The technical term is that it is "excluded" upon a motion to suppress made by the lawyer for the accused. It is based on the constitutional requirement that "...no [person] can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, applied to the states by 14th Amendment).

Deposition in Aid of Execution

the taking and recording of testimony of a witness under oath before a court reporter in a place away from the courtroom before trial. It is part od permitted pre-trial discovery, set up by an attorney for one of the parties to a lawsuit demanding the sworn testimony of the opposing party, a witness to an event, or an expert intended to be called at trial by the opposition. If the person requested to testify (deponent) is a party to the lawsuit or someone who works for an involved party, notice of time and place of the deposition can be given to the other side's attorney, but if the witness is an independent third party, a subpena must be served on him/her if he/she is reluctant to testify. The testimony is taken down by the court reporter, who will prepare a transcript if requested and paid for, which assists in trial preparation and can be used in trial either to contradict (impeach) or refresh the memory of the witness, or be read into the record if the witness is not available.