In this hypothetical situation, what should a police officer do?
This scenario is completely hypothetical but I would be interested in the opinion of current and former police officers on how they would handle the situation. Assume you respond to a complaint in which a very rare, very expensive parrot was stolen from a residence. The owner of the parrot is somewhat of a recluse and lives alone; his only steady companion for the last 20 years has been his beloved pet parrot. The owner is distraught over losing his pet. As you invesitgate the crime an unreliable confidential informant tells you that an ex-con living up the street from the victim stole the bird and will be reselling it to a wealthy collector. Circumstantial evidence tells you that the bird is still in the ex-con's house but you have no way of knowing when the exchange to the collector will be made. You are personally convinced this guy is guilty but don't have sufficient grounds for a search warrant. What do you do?
Consider the following hypothetical reaction and the established rate law.?
Consider the following hypothetical reaction and the established rate law. Select an acceptable mechanism. A2 + B2 → X + Y rate = k [A2] [B2][X]-1 a) A2 2 A (fast) b) A2 C + X (fast) B2 + A → C (slow) B2 + C → Y (slow) C + A → X + Y (fast) c) A2 + B2 C (fast) d) B2 → 2 B (slow) C → X + Y (slow) B + A2 → C (fast) C + B → X + Y (fast) e) B2 2 B (fast) B → C + X (slow) C → Y (fast)
Can you admit a hypothetical question in court? For instance you talked about like hypothetically committing some crime or how you'd do it. Could that be admitted into court or is that, like, hearsay?
If you are dealing with an expert witness, a hypothetical question would be perfectly proper.
Business law case question please help?
Gerwin's daughter Mary was seeking a position as an associate attorney with Baker, Charles & Dixon, a large metropolitan law firm. The firm, after several meetings with Mary over a two-month period, made Mary an offer of employment on January 15. Mary accepted the offer that day and immediately left for Cape Cod to celebrate without telling Gerwin or anyone else about her new job. On January 17, two days after Mary had accepted the offer, Gerwin sent Baker, Charles & Dixon a letter in which she offered to give Baker all of her legal business (approximately $40,000 per year) if the law firm would hire Mary. The law firm accepted. After Gerwin learned that Mary already had been hired by Baker, Charles & Dixon, Gerwin refused to transfer her business to the law firm. The law firm has brought suit against Gerwin on the grounds that a valid contract exists between them. How will the case be decided?
SHOULD cannibalism be grounds for leniency in murder cases, since its less wasteful?
It isnt cannibalism if the person was raised as livestock.
Is it libel if I add a question mark?
In general, libel only applies to statements of (supposed) fact about an entity. Adding a question mark would, in most cases, tip the scales in favour of the claim being expressed in the form of an opinion, which would then not be actionable.However, if the question has been framed with the deliberate intent of tarnishing an entity's reputation by intentionally portraying them in a false light, you could find yourself open to the Tort of False Light [http://netlaw.samford.edu/Martin... ].
In court, when is it useful to object to a leading question?
My attitude to making objections is: will the objection advance my client's interests? Cliff Gilley quite correctly points out the importance of objections to maintain the rules of evidence and establish a proper record for appeal. There's a tactical side to consider as well. I usually try to keep objections to a minimum, because the jury might believe I'm trying to obstruct the truth. However, I'll usually object if there's something obviously improper; the judge is fairly certain to sustain the objection, and the message to the jury is that the other side isn't playing fair. Going to the questioner's edited example, the question is arguably leading and an objection might possibly be sustained. But I almost certainly wouldn't object. What would my client gain? The matter is preliminary and trivial, and I'd view the objection as very unlikely to help my client. I'd be especially cautious of making technical objections if the opposing counsel is younger, or inexperienced, or if in any way it will look like I'm overbearing. Trials are very dynamic events. Fighting and winning every little point is of no value if you put your case at risk.
Can a person on the witness stand object to a line of questioning if their lawyer doesn't?
In principle, yes, although the grounds a witness would have would be few, mainly a privilege, such as the privilege against self-incrimination, or attorney-client privilege.However, there are many things a witness can say that serve the same purpose as an objection without sounding like one. A witness may say “I don’t understand the question” or “"I can’t answer the question the way it is phrased.(For example “"when did you stop beating your wife?”). Those are functionally objections to the form of the question. They also tell you how best to “object”: don’t act like a lawyer and “object”; act like a cautious non-lawyer trying in good faith to give an honest, thoughtful response.Borderline statements like: “I’m not going to speculate” or “That’s a hypothetical question” may or may not succeed. They may, however, roust your attorney from napping.But objections to relevance or parol evidence or hearsay are not going to go over well.
Does spousal privilege extend to periods of engagement or separation?
Spousal privilege is 'state' specific under the "Rules of Evidence" so this answer will be general ... your state (or country) may be different. First, spousal privilege comes in two flavors - marital communications and spousal testimonial. Under marital privilege, also called communications privilege, a court may not compel one spouse to testify against the other concerning confidential communications made during marriage. This applies in both civil and criminal court. What this means is this: if a husband communicates with his wife in confidence, then she cannot testify even if she attempts to volunteer the information. Should she volunteer, the husband can invoke the privilege and rule the proposed testimony inadmissible. This privilege survives divorce. The spousal testimonial privilege allows a spouse to volunteer testimony in a criminal case. As long as the information is not "confidential," the spouse can testify. For instance, a spouse can testify as to a drug deal she "observed" between her spousal and other co-conspirators. This privilege does not survive the marriage; that is, after divorce, there is no right to refuse to testify against a defendant ex-spouse. This privilege may be restricted to testimony about events that occurred during the marriage, although in some jurisdictions it may apply to testimony about events occurring prior to the marriage. The privileges exists even if separated. However, if neither party can recall whether the communication took place before or after the marriage, it is not privileged. Let's face it, if a party wants to claim spousal privilege but does not know whether the communication took place before or after the marriage, the opposing attorney would object on the grounds that the communication did not take place during the marriage. If the submitting party cannot prove otherwise, the privilege cannot be invoked. Since I live in Texas, I included a link to the Texas rule regarding spousal privilege. You can Google your state for better specifics ...