1) Brief Pearson v. State, 86 A.3d 1232 MD. App. 2014). You are the defense atto
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
1) Brief Pearson v. State, 86 A.3d 1232 MD. App. 2014). You are the defense attorney in a trial involving the alleged sale of illegal drugs by your client. In your state, the trial judge conducts the voir dire of prospective jury members, and you give questions to the judge with a request the judge ask them to the members. Would you like the judge to ask the prospective jurors these questions: 1) Have you or a family member ever been the victim of a crime? 2) Have you ever been employed by law enforcement? Why would you like these questions asked? If the judge refuses, and your client is convicted, do you have good grounds for an appeal? What did the judge do wrong in the case briefed?
2) Brief United States v. Salazar, 751 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2014). You are the appeals judge in an illegal drugs and weapons case that has been appealed by the defendant to your court. At his trial, the defendant took the witness stand and confessed to all the crimes charged. At the trial’s conclusion the trial judge instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty, which it did. Should you reverse the conviction? On what grounds?
3) Brief United States v. Hamilton, 701 F.3rd 404 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied 133 S. Ct. 1838 (2013). Assume you dictated a letter to your secretary to be mailed to your spouse. Are the contents of this letter, assuming they would otherwise constitute marital communications, subject to the marital communications privilege? If not, what about the contents of an e-mail sent on a work e-mail account? does it matter what the employer tells the employee about use of the e-mail account?
4) Brief State v. Riensche, 812 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 2012). Some states have a “public ignominy” statue, which permits a witness to refuse to give testimony that will expose the witness to public ignominy. Nebraska has such a statue, Neb. REV. Stat. 25-1210. Assume a young adult woman, married with small children, is called to testify in a criminal trial about alleged sexual assaults committed by her step-father when she was 7 years old. She states she won’t testify, because she does not want to relive the experiences and suffer the embarrassment of publicly revealing the details of the sexual assaults. she therefore invokes the “privilege” of section 25-1210. The trial judge orders her to testify, and she refuses, resulting in a contempt of court against her. On appeal, should the Nebraska Supreme court affirm the contempt order?