Law Questions and Answers

How can i make this better..Law...closing statement?

Hello my fellow jury member. As you jury members might know we are here to prosecute a criminal who in danger of extinction two lives and unfortunately one of them died. I, Jeffrey Franco am here to put Alex surrounded by jail where on earth hopefully he won’t commit any other crimes. You have hear the arguments from both sides and I hope you are going to make the right declaration. If you still don’t know your decisions around the trial, here are my final arguments to support you on making the right decision. The following paragraph are given to show you why Alex is fault of the crimes. Please reward attention because every detail counts, and when you make your outcome I hope that you are 110% sure that your decision is correct.
In the trial that we are arguing over, Alex Flin is 100% guilty; we own gathered information from the witnesses that be at the party who saw everything. That light of day when Alex arrived at the party everything be going well. Alex seem well at first when the drinks be just soda and juice. Chris states that when they were intake, beer was brought from the subterranean vault to the kitchen by Ken. Ken Conroy is a popular student who organized the party which happen on Saturday night. I suppose that Ken told most of the citizens that he invited that there be going to be alcoholic beverages at the party. All the citizens that were at the deputation, stated that when Ken invited them he gave them a spot to them saying that alcohol be to take place at the fête. It seems to me that Alex be told that alcohol was going to lift place at the party as resourcefully.
As soon as Alex started drinking beer, I know that he didn’t remember that he had to drive final home and drop off Anita. As we started interview to him what happened on the hours of darkness of the party he didn’t remember anything, manifestly he was already drunk at that time. Alex be warned by his Health lecturer that drinking is bad and how drunk driving is insecure for the driver which in this covering was him and how it also could endanger other relatives in the coupé. He clearly knew these procedures since he score A’s on all his Health Class test and he had an A on that class. He know by that time that minors aren’t allowed to drink by law so why did he drink and bear his chances on going to put inside.
Monica stated that she asked Alex for the keys because she have a feeling that he be in vulnerability because he was already drunk. Monica say that he screamed spinal column to her and didn’t give him the key to the car so she started to cry. Chris and Erinn briefly describe that as soon as Alex moved out the parking space he knocked something down which be a mailbox. When they were already doing a tour, Chris says that Alex be weaving adjectives over the road. He also says that he be speeding up and slowing down as they moved along Old Maine St. To prove that he wasn’t drunk he accelerated eve more when Chris started yell and Anita started crying with great energy to make him stop the motor. Alex ignored these pains and eventually crashed the car into a tree which be off the course of the street. This crash happen because both Alex and Anita were conflict for the steering wheel, but it be clearly Alex’s fault because he be drunk and because he should have listen to them when they started urging him to stop the car.


Alex’s parents hold let him turn to previous parties since, but they have never see him drink beer or look drunk at all. My hypothesis is that every time Alex comes hindmost from a party, his parents are any sleeping or aren’t present when he arrives because of the time he arrives at home. The police say that he be driving at 75 miles per hour when the speed limit be 45mph. The police also gathered evidence that his BAC level-Blood Alcohol Concentration be 0.07. Alex maximum BAC level should be 0.0 because he is a minor and isn’t allowed to drink. The police officer also saw that Alex had blood and vomit on his clothes due to the concussion from the beer. From this gathering he arrived between 3:40 A.M. to 4:30 A.M to his house because the crash happened at 3:20 A.M which is proved by the police officer.
When the police arrived at his house at 5:00A.M in the morning, his parents have no idea what be going on and didn’t expect Alex to be in wide trouble. Alex at that time was also confused and didn’t know that he have crash and that one of his friends was insensible because of his carelessness.
Alex be behaving unbelievably negligent so he should be charged next to the following crimes; criminally negligent homicide, vehicle manslaughter, and DWI. Criminally forgetful homicide is when a person is guilty of a person’s extermination and the person be acting very irresponsibly. Vehicle manslaughter is when a party is acting irresponsibly, therefore he cause the death of a party and this happens when he is intoxicated, surrounded by this trial Alex was drunk. DWI is when someone is driving while intoxicated, within this case Alex be drunk because of the alcohol he consumed, that person won’t know how to control the vehicle properly and safely because alcohol is running throughout their body. This brings profusely of danger to them and anyone who is inside of the vehicle.
So please my fellow jury member I ask for you to make a sagacious decision and put yourself contained by our shoes. Do you think an irresponsible senior should be surrounded by the streets maybe cause another crash or killing someone because of his negligence? Please cause the right choice for the safety of the city, you, and everyone else explicitly outside there living a safe and sound life. Thank adjectives of you for your patience and time.
Answers: 1. You are contained by Mock Trial, so unless you have a jury, you are have a court trial. If you are having a jury trail, first, "Hello my fellow jury member. As you jury members might know we are here to prosecute a criminal who in danger of extinction two lives and unfortunately one of them died." You are not a fellow juror. You are the prosecutor. Second, the jury is not in attendance to prosecute anyone, just find the facts. Next, you cannot mention punishment, so cliché you are there to put him contained by Jail just is not proper.

Next, dance over what the witnesses said, not collectively.

Say things like, the relatives have proven that the defendant, do not ring up him/her by name, as you do not want to personalize him. And never, ever by the first heading by its self. Finally, explain that you have proven you crust beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, they are the jurors, not my fellow jurors and he is not Alex, he is the defendant.
Thank them for their time. Thank them for your attention and finish by pointing at the defendant and wise saying, he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges. Thank you.
1. they are not your 'fellow' jury member. You are the prosecution lawyer and and so not in the jury.
2. You cannot voice the defendant is 100% guilty because he has not be found guilty yet. you can articulate 'after you hear these arguments you will be convinced he is guilty'
3. You cannot claim anyone saw 'everything' - do you really believe that they saw everything??
4. You don't have to articulate so much about Ken. All the jury desires to know is that invited guests understood near would be alcohol at the party. It doesn't requirement to be longer than 1-2 sentances to get that across.
5. Never read aloud 'i suppose' it sounds like you are timid.
6. Don't say you know he forget he had to drive - if you want him convicted be more agressive - He know before he started drinking that he have a responsibility to drive. He knew that drinking underage and in the past driving was dubious and dangerous. But instead of using this knowlegde, he foolishly drank anyway.
6. beer does not bestow concussion. He may have hurt himself and given himself a concussion because he be drunk
7. you don't do something negligent. You do it negligently.
8. Don't use an acronym (DWI) unless you enjoy already explained what it means contained by full.
sounds like you made up your mind previously you heard the evidence. also if your a juror or prosecutor why are you broadcasting this on yahoo? sounds pretty unprofessional.

Was it illegal to remove aviation refuse from the World Trade Center on 911?

Answers: Bush does what he wants to do. So would Clinton. Reagan ect
As long as the jetsam is properly checked and important pieces of evidence are kept, no. Basically, as long as no evidence is intentionally destroyed, in that is no crime. It would be very unyielding, if not impossible, to prove that anyone intentionally destroyed aviation driftwood from the World Trade Center site.

You also have to remember that the first priority is to rescue possible survivors, which may mete out the destruction of evidence. The next step is to collect and story evidence.

ADDITION:

The key words are "short authority". As long as you have the authority, probable from the NTSB or the FAA to remove such debris, it is not a crime. I would hold to assume that the FDNY and other government agencies be given such authority to conduct the search for survivors at the World Trade Center site following the collapse.

The second switch part is "knowingly". If you are removing a bunch of rubble that happen to have a concealed aircraft part within it, you are not knowingly removing that division as you believe that you are removing rubble. This shows that you must have intent to remove that part of the pack and knowledge that you are removing aircraft ruins. In a court of law, such intent would be difficult to prove given the circumstances.
There be only one part of the pack that was of any use, and that be the black box.

There is a misconception in the minds of the public that any plane that crashes must be meticulously and methodically recovered and reconstruct. That is false. The truth is that they have do do this when the do of the crash is unknown. This was NOT the armour on 9/11. Everyone on earth know how the planes crashed. That is why the individual pieces of debris and their location is inconsequential.
You can't preserve a crime scene when within are possible survivors buried beneath it.

Moron!!!
Have a look at this you will be amazed and terrified. Loose adapt on steroids.

By law can he enjoy me in court over this event with .h.?

this woman who kept comming on to me and would run no for a answer was married. kids and husband . she be always calling me and my buddie to come up when he be gone all she did be bother me and wanted in good health sex she was contained by her.40.s and i was .19. as in good health my buddie to. well she other kept it on then sometime it happened . right within her home. her. idea sex yes sadley to enunciate then she also did my buddie latter on . within the same place her home. can her husband enjoy us in court over this after adjectives it was her doing.s on this and she be the one who told him can he have us contained by court over this and what can happen to me. and my buddie by statute if we have to appear contained by a court legal perceptive over her doing.s on this matter it would be surrounded by a w.va court . thanks but she be doing this i need to know what can arise where they be married for .20. some years thank again
Answers: pal it would be inberasing a short time ago to set in a cort at your age as resourcefully her.s and see the expression on your faces really i would love seeing that but by imperative no. i hope not there.s enought nuts approaching you all i could influence is ever hear of smith and wession. well within real and it.s not worth it mate my opion?
Same question...different morning.

If this is true...get some dream therapy and move on.

Has Ron Paul ever talked around how he intends to go in the region of implementing his policies?

Has Ron Paul ever talk about how he intends to be in motion about implement his policies? Please give me a video surrounded by which he breaks it down.
Answers: Of course not. He wants to dismantle most of the federal policy and withdraw the USA from every international treaty establishment out there. He hasn't a clue how to do this, and thank devoutness - it would be disastrous.
He will over haul administration at mid term beside the Paulette's'. A group of senile seniors who's motto is "respect your elders". They will spend the wealth on their Golden Years a short time ago like other classmates have and will present generations destitute.

Ever piss you rotten to see some old entity swimming in money and constraint that discount?

Driver without license?

Am I asking for trouble if I ride within a car beside a driver who I know does not have a license? What could be charged against me, as a passenger, if anything?

Thanks
Answers: If it is your saloon, you can be charged for permitting an unauthorized character to drive.

Otherwise, you are in the clear.
This website may serve you
http://handleonthelaw.com/

I do know that if there is an disaster, your insurance will not cover it.

Why are there so several crooks in the world? Lawyers, CPAs, doctors, bench, employers, the register?

can go on and on. It's similar to there is no integrity anymore. Just wondering what happen to a hand shake? Granted within the west if you welched, they had a shoot out, but very soon it's like adjectives and then they find another crook to try and handle it and it you seize one to fight, you may running out up with another one contained by the pit of vipers.
Answers: i agree with you RJ near was a time when we be younger when people be much more honest and had integrity. here are some of the change i noticed when i be a kid if you hit even a parked car short the driver present a note be left on the motor, hit and run was practically unheard of. cheating surrounded by school (college too) be a rare trend, now it's practically a standard. corporations are crooked to the top. family cheat each other. look at the evil immigration thing and the path illegal entry to this country is marginalized. there's more but i don't want to write adjectives night. FYI the word you used is supposed to be spelled welsh not welch and it is a slur against nation from wales as they are called welsh. it's defined as to avoid return —used with on-- as surrounded by welsh on
2sometimes offensive : to break one's word : renege. ****amongst other things i'm welsh so i don't use the word because it be originated to be a slur against the welsh ancestors. there are lots of others i don't enjoy to tell you, i devise you know most of them since you can't make it through vivacity without audible range most of them. i just thought i'd consent to you know that little piece of history. you know Y/A would not have a clue as to this word and it's seed or that it was originate for derogatory purposes. keep asking question it makes us judge!!!
There are almost 300 million people surrounded by the US alone.

If only 1/2 of one percent are "crooks", after there are still 1.5 million crooks.
Well not adjectives lawyers and the rest are greedy. Some of them are. You will find greed anywhere I own met greedy waitresses, greedy housewives, and greedy consumers.
Some people merely lack integrity and get the impression that happiness can be obtain outside of themselves.
You say within is no integrity anymore. When do you claim there be more integrity? And how are lawyers etc on your document different from anyone else? Because a builder or car salesman would never rip somone bad? Oh, Please.
Well look at john edwards, how many race did he screw, he has no integrity!!!!!! no conscience, look at the house he lives's within??????? he didn't get it by self a christian lawyer, person truthful etc. its just an example of what we obverse today, this nation is not one nation under GOD, its that 14%, who do not believe contained by God, cheaters liar's evildoer's etc. etc. very, deeply sad!!!!!!!

What Good Does It Do To Give Death Row Inmates A Last Meal?

Answers: Much of the treatment and protocol for executions in the USA hold the witnesses and the prison staff's benefit in mind. While it may come across fairly smooth to say we'd similar to to see a murderer executed, the business of going about doing it can clang the nerves of everyone involved. It's common for family close to the situation to want to make the condemned as comfortable as possible until that time the execution - just as one might try to comfort an animal past "putting it to sleep".

Moral reasoning aside, there is also the effect that a "luxury" such as a ending meal have on the condemned prisoner.

Prisoners who have be treated well contained by their final days generally tend to be more cooperative when the grim hour arrives. I know that doesn't nouns likely, but it seem to hold true if you look over this history of execution in this country. The opinion of a "last meal" is recurrently a defining moment of finalization for the prisoner... an indication that he is going to die within a few hours. Hope of reprieve dwindles after the teatime is served and the prisoner often resigns himself to his providence... ultimately making the process easier on everyone involved.
A final touch of humanity in an otherwise grim business.

Do any devout? Probably not, but at least they don't die of starvation.
Food have a cultural and social significance as well as nutritional by offering later meal it say you are still a person, by letting them choose it give them some control over their life fairly than just one a nothing until they die.

Remember the story roughly speaking jesus' last super, it wasn't more or less nutrition, I'm not advocating religion newly using it as a well agreed reference.
It's not proper etiquette to consent to a man be killed beside an empty belly.
Something roughly speaking 'cruel and unusual punishment.'
If you don't give them a final meal, consequently the one before that will be the second one, and if you don't give that one, later the one before that.by your logic, we would never nurture them at all after they are sentenced.

HR 1955...How can it only attain 6 Nays???

remember, all the clauses within this bill that claimed to protect constitutional rights are null and void because nobody, once designated a "homegrown terrorist" by the state have any constitutional rights...and they can designate any individual or group based on the assumption that they be "planning on coercing the American public for their political goals" AKA "practicing freespeech in a path that criticizes the state"
Answers: lol, so everyone that is shouting for Bush to be impeach would be a homegrown terrorist?

If you didn't want to see someone again.?

And you have to both sign exalted documents at a lawyers, could I sign the documents lacking seeing this person.
Answers: Sure. Sign them at different times. There is no decriminalized need to witness respectively other's signatures.
Yes, you don't need to see the soul.

Thanks for the points.

Mens abortion rights?

this is another two part give somebody the third degree, both are realative to the topic, but are seperate questions.

my first one is, should men enjoy a say surrounded by abortion? i'm figuring most of you will read aloud no, but i'm interested to see if someone thinks men should enjoy some part of this process/decision.

my second cog is, would you find it reasonable for a official agreement on responsiblity? women have the right to alleviate any responsibility for taking diligence of a child by getting an abortion(in general). a guy has no voice within the matter. this hurts men contained by two ways. one, is if the guy wants and is prepared to take consideration of the child on his own. maybe pink, but it happens. but number two is what really bothers me. if a women chooses to keep hold of the baby, despite the reality that he doesn't want the child, he is forced to take responsiblity for it. this go back to the put somebody through the mill, should there be a contract, for a guy to "abort" his rights as a father. this way no visitation, no child support, nothing.
Answers: i construe to an extent the questions you are asking yourself - and i would wager other men hold wondered the same kind of things.

it is reasonable to amount that when a guy gets a girl pregnant that he may really want her to pass the fetus to term and offer birth because he really wants a child. he may even be predisposed to take full responsibility for raise the child without any role or support from the mother. this is something that the couple can arrange for.

ultimately - while it may seem to be unfair that you don't achieve to determine whether or not someone you impregnanted keeps a pregnancy or not, you inevitability to accept it as it is.

ideally, the two nation talk it over and can mutually agree on what will develop next. abortion or no abortion. the guy may really want her to abort the fetus, but she get to decide whether or not to own that medical procedure done. because right or wrong in your feelings - she is the one who has to grow the cell into a baby and later deliver it, and then be a mother. huge responsibility. and 9 months is a long time.

until men can start carrying children, this is how it is. for a long time, men DID surrounded by fact sort many decision for women, limiting their autonomy and their rights as independent human beings. to this day, sexism is a greatly real issue.
You should not own a had apathetic sex, Joshua.
If you are right, every man out there who have to pay child support would use your argument.
I do not believe that men should enjoy any say, whatsoever, within whether or not a woman has an abortion. It's their bodies, not ours. The most moral entry we can do is ensure that it remains a safe and legitimate option.

As for responsibility; guys do tend to draw from screwed when it comes to child support and things like that - I do support the concept of a man being competent to opt out of parental rights.
A man can abort his little head,,
anytime he wishes.
after all his little spermmies cause it!
Answer to first question:
1. You aren't the one pregnant so why should you find a say if the human being that is pregnant should own to carry around a child for 9 months? If the woman is against getting an abortion, why should the being not pregnant have any competence to coerce the person into an abortion.

2. I mull over there are more guys that would want to enjoy the kid than you seem to give attention to. But even so, if a guy wants to catch out of responsibility, then he shouldn't be so slapdash about his sexual amusement. If you don't want to pay child support, don't do things that increase your likelihood of getting someone pregnant. The reason a guy doesn't get hold of to opt out of paying child support is because states have the public policy that a child deserves to own two parents supporting him or her. Just because YOU don't want the child doesn't mean the child should not be allowed to be born, but you are partly responsible for that child ever being born. I am sure if you looked-for the child and she didn't and she brought the child to term and you get custody you'd expect her to pay child support (and you'd be entitled to it)

To avoid this problem you could take home sure that the person you are have sex with would be prepared to abort the fetus if you got her pregnant first...
I do not even know where on earth to begin...this is a great interview and I don't really have an answer, but I do know that in that are many abundant single mothers who do not get sustain from the fathers and even if they do acquire financial help sometimes the parenting relief is not available.
If a woman aborts a child the child is gone and suffers no consequence. If a man get a woman pregnant and ignores adjectives responsibility the child is the one who suffers. I have a impression that if there be a legal process for men to discount responsibility, some men would just love it too much and that would be deadly to society.
I don't know man, this is just one of the few things where on earth women have the upper paw.
Don't you just will there be male birth control?

Oh loaf there is its call condoms!!!! Don't leave home minus them. although I got pregnant even next to a condom, so I guess men who don't want to be responsible adults should not have sex ,bottem string.
I see where you're coming from and I reckon it's a well brought-up point and unfortunately not discussed adequate. While we we have to adopt that women probably should have the ultimate say contained by a situation, who can deny that the baby belongs to the father of late as much as the mother? I don't think there's any fairness surrounded by saying a guy can 'abort' his responsibilities as a dad. If a guy have unprotected sex, he has to be held responsible.
But I do suppose that if a woman wants to enjoy an abortion it's plain wrong to disregard the father's wishes. At the end of the year the couple should come to a decision specifically the best for the child.
You do have a choice. If you don't want a child,your choices are..don't enjoy sex,wear a condom or get a vasectomy. If you choose not to follow any of these,after you shouldn't be able to opt out of your responsibility. It take two to make a child and two are needed to support it.
As far as a mans choice almost abortion. I do feel doomed to failure for men who don't want their child aborted. I hold a friend who's GF aborted their child years ago. He have never gotten over it. He truly wanted that child. But,the ways our law are now,it is still the woman's conclusion.
If you become pregnant, then you should hold the choice and not the person that you may not approaching that impregnated you. Otherwise, it is not your body specifically pregnant and it is not your choice. I know of many men that would drug a woman, obtain her pregnant and force her to have a child. I believe it is best for society not to set up a system that would breed a framework like that available.

More Questions and Answers:
[1969] - [2196] - [1011] - [2506] - [707] - [1135] - [2225] - [45] - [2250] - [439] - [936] - [2366] - [686] - [2074] - [754] - [1633] - [1184] - [499] - [598] - [2535]

The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.

Answer question: