You believe your client will not get a fair trial at the current location. What motion will you file to address this

A judge that makes a legal decision on a case today may look at past case law and follow the concept of stare decisis.

Stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided," is a legal principle that directs judges to adhere to the precedent established by previous court decisions. It is based on the idea that consistency and predictability in the law are crucial for maintaining a fair and stable legal system.

When a judge is faced with a new case, they may review similar cases from the past that have addressed similar legal issues. By examining these precedents, the judge can gain insight into how prior courts have interpreted and applied the law in similar situations. The judge then applies these precedents to the current case to maintain consistency in the legal interpretation and ensure fairness in the decision-making process.

Stare decisis serves several important purposes. First, it promotes uniformity in the law by requiring judges to follow established legal principles and decisions. This consistency enhances predictability and allows individuals and businesses to make informed decisions based on settled legal standards.

Second, stare decisis contributes to judicial efficiency by relying on existing legal precedents. Rather than starting from scratch with each new case, judges can draw on the wisdom and rationale provided by previous court decisions, saving time and resources.

know more about stare decisis here:

https://brainly.com/question/30455267

#SPJ11

The standard that asks a judge to weigh the strength of the case by determining whether the prosecution has presented enough evidence at a preliminary hearing that could be sent to a jury at a real trial is called the probable cause standard.

Probable cause is a legal standard that requires a judge to determine if there is enough evidence in the prosecutor's case to justify proceeding to trial. At a preliminary hearing, a judge is asked to weigh the strength of the case by determining whether the prosecution has presented enough evidence that could be sent to a jury at a real trial.

A probable cause hearing is a preliminary hearing in which the prosecutor presents evidence to the judge to establish that there is enough evidence to support a reasonable belief that a crime was committed by the defendant. It is important to note that the probable cause standard is not a high standard, but rather, it is a low standard that is only meant to establish that there is enough evidence to support a reasonable belief that a crime was committed.

Learn more about probable cause https://brainly.com/question/28399684

#SPJ11

The ruling of the Supreme Court in this case illustrates the concept of preemption.

The municipality zoning ordinance attempted to regulate the placement of satellite dish antennas in residential areas through size and location requirements. However, the Supreme Court declared the ordinance unconstitutional because it violated the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulation law.

Preemption occurs when a higher level of law, such as a federal law or regulation, supersedes or preempts a conflicting state or local law. In this case, the FCC Regulation law, being a federal law, took precedence over the local zoning ordinance.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court ruled that the municipality's zoning ordinance was unconstitutional because it directly conflicted with the FCC Regulation law. The FCC, as a federal agency, has the authority to regulate satellite dish antennas and determine the rules governing their placement. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision in favor of preemption upheld the federal authority and struck down the local ordinance.

To learn more about preemption, click here:

brainly.com/question/11422283

#SPJ11

In State v. Patino (2012), the justices argued that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his sent text messages because he had voluntarily shared the information with a third party.

In the case of State v. Patino (2012), the justices argued that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his sent text messages because he had voluntarily shared the information with a third party. The Third Party Doctrine holds that when a person shares their information with a third party, they no longer have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

As a result, the information becomes the property of the third party.In other words, when Patino sent text messages to another person, he effectively relinquished his privacy rights over that information. Because the recipient of the messages was a third party, the police had the legal right to access the messages without violating the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Learn more about Amendment's protections https://brainly.com/question/28949431

#SPJ11

According to the Code of Criminal Procedure, a written statement that is filed and presented on behalf of the State of Texas by a district attorney that charges a person with an offense that may be prosecuted according to law is called an information.

According to Article 1.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, an information is a written statement filed and presented on behalf of the State of Texas by a district attorney that charges a person with an offense that may be prosecuted according to law.

This is different from an indictment, which is a formal accusation that initiates a criminal case and is returned by a grand jury.

Both of these legal documents are important to the prosecution of criminal cases in Texas. An information can be used in certain circumstances to bring a person to trial for a criminal offense.

It must include specific information about the alleged offense and the person accused of committing it. In addition, the district attorney must have probable cause to believe that the offense was committed and that the person accused is responsible for it.

Learn more about  Code of Criminal Procedure here https://brainly.com/question/22918499

#SPJ11

Gene's attorney will likely ask Illya a series of questions designed to undermine or discredit Homer's claims or show that Gene has a better legal argument than Homer has.

Depending on the specific facts of the case, this could include asking Illya to provide more information about what happened when Homer used the cabin, whether Gene had ever given Homer permission to use it, or if Illya knows of any other instance when Homer used the cabin without Gene's permission.

Additionally, Gene's attorney may ask Illya to clarify any aspects of the case that Homer's attorney has raised or to challenge any of Homer's statements that are in dispute. If Illya’s testimony is helpful to Gene’s cause, the attorney may also ask Ignya to confirm or expand upon the facts in Gene’s favor. Depending on the evidence and the legal strategy of both parties, the attorney may also lead Ignya into testifying to opposing versions of events or interpret things in ways to make them appear different to the court.

To know more about Homer , click here:

https://brainly.com/question/29775289

#SPJ4

True. Uniform acts are indeed model statutes that are drafted by private bodies of lawyers and/or scholars.

These private bodies, such as the Uniform Law Commission (formerly known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), develop these model statutes to provide consistency and uniformity in laws across different jurisdictions within a country, typically at the state level.

Uniform acts serve as suggested frameworks for legislation, offering a standardized approach to legal issues or areas of law. They are meticulously drafted and revised by legal experts to ensure clarity, coherence, and practicality.

However, it is important to note that uniform acts themselves do not automatically become law. Instead, they become law only after a legislature enacts them. State legislatures have the authority to adopt, modify, or reject these model statutes. Once enacted by a legislature, the uniform act becomes part of the statutory law of that jurisdiction.

The process of enacting a uniform act involves introducing and considering the act as a bill within the legislative body. It undergoes the usual legislative procedures, such as committee hearings, debates, and voting, before it can be passed into law.

The adoption of uniform acts by legislatures is not mandatory, and states can choose whether or not to adopt them. However, the goal of uniform acts is to promote consistency and harmonization in the law across jurisdictions, making it easier for individuals, businesses, and legal professionals to navigate legal issues.

In summary, uniform acts are model statutes drafted by private bodies of lawyers and/or scholars. These model statutes become law only after they are enacted by a legislature. Their purpose is to provide uniformity and consistency in laws across different jurisdictions, but their adoption is not obligatory for states.

Learn more about lawyers here

https://brainly.com/question/31455762

#SPJ11

In a jury trial, the jury decides questions of fact, and the Judge decides questions of law: TRUE. "A Statute of Limitation" is a law which limits the amount of money a Plaintiff can recover in a trial: FALSE.

After being served with Summons and a copy of the Complaint, a Defendant would generally file a pleading called an Answer: TRUE .

Under the Supremacy Clause, when there is a direct conflict between a Federal law and a State law, the State law will control: FALSE.

The "Bill of Rights" provides protection for individuals, and also for corporations: FALSE.

The "Commerce Clause" Article I, Sec. 8, grants Congress the exclusive authority to regulate any activity it deems appropriate: TRUE.

State "police powers" relate solely to criminal law enforcement: FALSE.

The First Amendment protects only spoken or written "speech": FALSE.

Administrative Agency Regulations and Rules, such as those promulgated by the SEC or NLRB, generally have the force of statutes: TRUE

To know more about Jury trial visit-

brainly.com/question/29774903

#SPJ11

Timothy has had some type of contact with New York. Long-arm Statutes allow state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over non-residents if the defendant has certain contacts with the state.

Therefore, the New York court must find that Timothy engaged in some type of activity or transaction within their state, such as owning property, forming contracts, or performing activities specific to New York. This will allow the New York court to have jurisdiction over Timothy, even though he is a resident of Texas.

If the court is able to establish personal jurisdiction over Timothy, then it can move forward with the tort claim that Ellis is bringing against him.

To know more about New York , click here:

https://brainly.com/question/12164635

#SPJ4

In the R. v. Sandeson case, some key pieces of evidence that are missing could impact the trial. The Crown's main arguments would likely focus on the existing evidence and circumstantial factors.

If representing the Crown, building the case would involve presenting the available evidence, establishing motive, and highlighting the defendant's actions. The defence would counter these arguments by challenging the credibility of the evidence, presenting alternative theories, and questioning the investigation methods. A defence attorney would build a case to counter the accusations by emphasizing the lack of direct evidence, challenging the credibility of witnesses, and presenting an alternative narrative.

In the R. v. Sandeson case, the missing key pieces of evidence could create challenges for both the Crown and the defence. The absence of crucial evidence, such as murder weapons or eyewitness accounts, may make it difficult to establish a clear and conclusive case. This missing evidence could impact the trial by creating uncertainties and potential gaps in the prosecution's narrative.

If representing the Crown, building the case would involve focusing on the existing evidence, such as forensic findings, phone records, or surveillance footage, to establish a plausible sequence of events and demonstrate the defendant's involvement. The Crown's main arguments would likely revolve around motive, the defendant's actions before and after the crime, and any circumstantial factors that may link them to the alleged offense.

On the other hand, the defence would counter these arguments by challenging the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by the Crown. They may question the methodology used in the investigation, the chain of custody for the evidence, and the potential bias or ulterior motives of witnesses. A defence attorney would aim to build a case that highlights the lack of direct evidence tying the defendant to the crime and present alternative explanations or potential suspects. They might also emphasize any inconsistencies or weaknesses in the Crown's case to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury or judge.

Learn more about eyewitnesses here : brainly.com/question/26651069

#SPJ11

The remedy that Smithson likely chose in this scenario is specific performance.

Specific performance is a legal remedy that requires the breaching party to fulfill their contractual obligation as agreed upon in the purchase agreement. In this case, Smithson signed a purchase agreement with Cornell to buy his home, but Cornell later decided not to sell the property. By pursuing specific performance, Smithson sought to enforce the contract and compel Cornell to complete the sale of the house.

Specific performance is often sought in situations where the subject matter of the contract is unique or where monetary compensation (damages) would not adequately remedy the injured party's loss. In real estate transactions, for example, each property is considered unique, and a party who is wrongfully denied the opportunity to purchase it may prefer to seek specific performance rather than monetary damages.

By obtaining a court order for specific performance, Smithson would essentially compel Cornell to sell the house as initially agreed upon in the purchase agreement. This remedy allows Smithson to acquire the property and fulfill the terms of the contract.

It's important to note that specific performance is not always granted by the court. The court will consider various factors, including the feasibility and practicality of enforcing the specific performance, as well as any defenses or counterclaims raised by the breaching party.

In summary, in the given scenario, Smithson likely chose the remedy of specific performance. By pursuing specific performance, Smithson sought to enforce the purchase agreement and compel Cornell to sell the house as agreed upon in the contract.

Learn more about scenario here

https://brainly.com/question/30275614

#SPJ11

This case study involves a security officer discharging his firearm at a vehicle in a public transit station. The incident occurred after the security officer instructed a motorist to move his vehicle from a no parking area.

The motorist reversed his vehicle, making contact with the security officer, who then fired several rounds into the rear tire of the vehicle.

The incident raises important questions regarding the appropriate use of force by security officers and the circumstances under which discharging a firearm is justified. The security officer's decision to draw his firearm and shoot at the vehicle's tire should be evaluated based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

In this case, the security officer's actions may be seen as excessive and potentially disproportionate to the situation. While the security officer may have felt threatened by the contact with the vehicle, it is essential to assess whether the use of lethal force was necessary to address the immediate danger or protect the officer's life. Alternatives, such as stepping aside or seeking assistance from colleagues, should be considered.

The incident also raises questions about the security officer's training and adherence to protocols. Proper training should emphasize de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, and the appropriate use of force. Investigation and legal proceedings would be necessary to determine whether the security officer's actions were within the bounds of the law and consistent with established guidelines for the use of force by security personnel.

Learn more about established guidelines  here:

https://brainly.com/question/30579868

#SPJ11

The law developed in early England by judges who wrote down their decisions and circulated them to other judges is referred to as Common Law.

Common law is a legal system of law that originated in England and is now followed in most English-speaking countries. It is a body of law developed through judicial decisions based on custom and tradition, rather than written laws.

Common law originated in England during the Middle Ages and evolved over time as judges wrote down their decisions and circulated them to other judges, creating a body of precedent. This precedent then became the basis for future legal decisions.

Common law is still used in many countries today, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

To learn more about Common Law

https://brainly.com/question/30128303

#SPJ11

The concept that remains constant in a closed system, where what goes in must come out equally, is the Conservation of Mass.

The Conservation of Mass is a fundamental principle in physics and chemistry, stating that in a closed system, the total mass remains constant over time. This means that the mass of the substances involved in a chemical or physical process does not change, regardless of the transformations they undergo.

In a closed system, matter cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be transformed from one form to another. This principle is commonly observed in various scientific fields. For example, in a chemical reaction, the total mass of the reactants is equal to the total mass of the products. This is expressed by the law of conservation of mass, which states that the mass before the reaction is equal to the mass after the reaction.

The conservation of mass has significant implications for understanding and predicting the behavior of substances and systems. It allows scientists to analyze and balance chemical equations, study the transfer of mass in physical processes, and make predictions about the outcomes of various reactions. This principle highlights the importance of accounting for mass and maintaining a balance in any closed system.

Learn more about closed system here:

https://brainly.com/question/14782983

#SPJ11

John's best argument for striking down the Illinois law prohibiting the use of a particular type of trailer hitch would likely be based on the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The Commerce Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. It has been interpreted by the courts to prohibit states from imposing regulations that unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce.

In John's case, his argument would revolve around the notion that Illinois' prohibition on the particular type of trailer hitch creates an undue burden on interstate commerce. If this type of hitch is widely accepted and used in most states across the country, the restriction imposed by Illinois could hinder or impede the movement of goods and services between states.

John could contend that the Illinois law places an unfair burden on businesses and individuals engaged in interstate commerce, as they would be forced to modify their trailer hitches or find alternative routes to avoid Illinois. This additional cost and inconvenience could negatively impact their operations, increase expenses, and disrupt the efficiency of interstate trade.

To support his argument, John would need to demonstrate that the prohibition on the trailer hitch is not necessary to achieve a legitimate state interest and that less restrictive alternatives are available. He would likely present evidence showing the safety and functionality of the particular hitch and argue that its use does not pose a substantial risk or harm that justifies the complete prohibition.

know more about Commerce Clause here:

https://brainly.com/question/28472893

#SPJ11

If a condition precedent does not occur when discharging a contract, the contract remains in force and the parties are obligated to fulfill their respective obligations under the terms of the contract.

In contract law, a condition precedent is a condition that must be fulfilled before a party's obligations under the contract are triggered or before the contract itself becomes binding. If a condition precedent is not satisfied or does not occur, it typically prevents the contract from coming into effect or being enforceable.

However, if the condition precedent is not met during the performance of a contract, the contract does not automatically discharge or terminate. Instead, the contract remains valid, and both parties are still obligated to perform their duties as outlined in the contract. The non-occurrence of a condition precedent may give rise to certain rights or remedies for the affected party, such as a claim for damages or seeking specific performance.

It is important to note that the specific consequences of a condition precedent not occurring may vary depending on the terms of the contract and the applicable laws in the jurisdiction. Parties may have agreed upon specific provisions regarding the non-occurrence of a condition precedent and the resulting consequences, such as termination clauses or provisions for renegotiation.

In summary, if a condition precedent does not occur when discharging a contract, the contract remains in force, and the parties are still obligated to fulfill their respective duties and obligations under the terms of the contract. The non-occurrence of a condition precedent may give rise to certain rights or remedies for the affected party, but it does not automatically discharge the contract.

Learn more about obligations here

https://brainly.com/question/1288606

#SPJ11

The court that relates to the case of Julie being pulled over by police at 2:00 am and being charged with breaking the curfew law in her town is the Juvenile court.

Juvenile courts are courts established for dealing with legal issues involving minors or juveniles who are not yet of legal age to be tried as adults in most jurisdictions.

In this case, since Julie was released back to her parents, it can be inferred that she is a minor, hence the case would have been handled by the Juvenile court. The Juvenile court is mandated with the responsibility of dealing with cases involving minors such as curfew violations, runaways, truancy, and other delinquent acts.

Juvenile courts are designed to address legal matters involving minors who have not reached the age of majority. They handle a range of issues related to juvenile delinquency, including curfew violations, truancy, and other offenses committed by underage individuals. These courts aim to provide rehabilitation and support for young offenders rather than focusing solely on punishment.

To learn more about Juvenile court

https://brainly.com/question/11399114

#SPJ11

In the test of abuse of qualified privilege, when a court asks whether the story is "fair and accurate," it requires that the story should be complete and include all sides of a contentious dispute. The concept of qualified privilege is available to journalists as a defense to defamation claims.

The test of abuse of qualified privilege is used to determine whether a journalist has exceeded the scope of qualified privilege by publishing false or defamatory information. Qualified privilege is a legal defense that protects a speaker from liability for defamation if the statement made was reasonable, made in good faith, and was made to a person or persons with an interest in the subject matter.

This doctrine is intended to strike a balance between the right to free speech and the right to reputation. If the statement is untrue or made maliciously, the defense of qualified privilege is lost. Qualified privilege is often invoked by journalists, who have a constitutional right to free speech and freedom of the press.

In order to claim qualified privilege as a defense to defamation, the journalist must show that the report was made in good faith, was based on reliable sources, and was made in the public interest. If the journalist can meet these requirements, then they will be protected from liability for defamation. The test of abuse of qualified privilege is used to determine whether a journalist has exceeded the scope of qualified privilege by publishing false or defamatory information.

In order to apply this test, the court will consider whether the story was fair and accurate, whether it was published with malice, and whether it was in the public interest. If the journalist failed to meet any of these requirements, then they will not be protected by qualified privilege and may be liable for defamation.

To learn more about privilege

https://brainly.com/question/18186362

#SPJ11

Most criminal work is conducted at the state level because this is where common law felonies and misdemeanors are tried.

Criminal cases are typically handled within the jurisdiction of the state in which the alleged offense took place. State courts have the authority to adjudicate a wide range of criminal matters, including common law felonies and misdemeanors. Common law refers to legal principles developed through court decisions rather than codified statutes.

State courts play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, as they handle a significant portion of criminal cases. Felonies, which are more serious offenses, and misdemeanors, which are less severe crimes, are prosecuted at the state level. Examples of common law felonies include murder, robbery, and burglary, while common law misdemeanors may include offenses such as petty theft or disorderly conduct.

State criminal codes outline the elements of different offenses and specify the penalties associated with each crime. These codes are enacted by state legislatures and provide a framework for prosecuting and adjudicating criminal cases within the state.

It is important to note that while the majority of criminal cases are handled at the state level, there are also federal crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal court system. Federal courts primarily deal with offenses that involve violations of federal law, such as drug trafficking across state lines or certain white-collar crimes.

In conclusion, most criminal work takes place at the state level, where common law felonies and misdemeanors are tried. State courts have the authority to handle a wide range of criminal cases and apply the applicable state criminal code to determine guilt or innocence and impose appropriate penalties.

Learn more about misdemeanors here

https://brainly.com/question/20348390

#SPJ11

If Rita successfully proves all the elements of her tort claim against San, Santos will not have a successful defense as the burden of proof will have been met, and San will be held liable for the tortious conduct.

Some potential defenses that Santos may raise include:

know more about defense here:

https://brainly.com/question/32346373

#SPJ11

In the featured case Sorrell v. IMS Health, a challenged Vermont law restricted the use of information on doctors. The legal challenge centered on First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court struck down the Vermont law.

Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. is a landmark Supreme Court case that involved a Vermont state law that limited the sale, exchange, and use of prescriber data for marketing purposes by pharmaceutical manufacturers and data mining companies. Pharmaceutical manufacturers argued that the Vermont law violated their First Amendment rights to commercial free speech and privacy rights, while Vermont officials argued that the law was meant to reduce healthcare costs and protect privacy rights of the medical professionals.

The legal challenge centered on First Amendment rights. In the Sorrell v. IMS Health case, the Supreme Court held that Vermont's prescription confidentiality law violated the First Amendment. Therefore, the law was struck down as unconstitutional as it violated the First Amendment rights of pharmaceutical companies to provide information to doctors and their patients.

Learn more about First Amendment rights https://brainly.com/question/26448398

#SPJ11

Biologists hypothesized that the first land plants had a low, sprawling growth habit due to several reasons. This allowed the plants to adapt to terrestrial habitats while overcoming challenges such as gravity, wind, and water availability.

The following are some of the reasons why the first land plants had a low, sprawling growth habit:

The plants were better suited to absorb nutrients and water from the soil and also anchor them to the ground. Low, sprawling growth habit helped in preventing them from drying out.

In terrestrial environments, they had to develop strategies to prevent water loss due to transpiration.

The land plants also needed to make a strong connection to the ground. The low, sprawling habit allowed them to penetrate the soil deeply, thus forming a stronger grip on the ground and preventing them from getting uprooted in strong winds.

Finally, biologists hypothesized that the low, sprawling habit helped in better exposure of the photosynthetic parts of the plant to sunlight for photosynthesis. In summary, biologists hypothesized that the first land plants had a low, sprawling growth habit due to their adaptation to terrestrial environments, which allowed them to absorb nutrients and water from the soil, develop a strong connection to the ground, and better exposure to sunlight for photosynthesis.

To learn more on photosynthesis :

https://brainly.com/question/19160081

#SPJ11

Primitive land plants are hypothesized to have low, sprawling growth due to their need for water, advantage in competition for resources, and protection against harsh environmental conditions.

Biologists have hypothesized that the first land plants, also known as primitive plants, had a low, sprawling growth habit due to several reasons associated with the environmental conditions and survival challenges during that time. Firstly, the low growth habit would have allowed these primitive plants to remain close to the water source, as they were evolving from aquatic life and still needed water for reproduction. Secondly, the sprawling growth would help these plants cover more ground, aiding in competition for resources. Thirdly, the Earth's environment at this stage was harsh with stronger UV radiation, having a low stature would provide some protection against this.

https://brainly.com/question/34786651

#SPJ12

The appellate court in Dixon v. University of Toledo held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act. The court found in favor of the University of Toledo.

Dixon v. University of Toledo is a legal case concerning the Equal Pay Act. The holding of the appellate court in Dixon v. University of Toledo was that the plaintiff, Dixon, had not made a prima facie case of discrimination under the Equal Pay Act.

The court held that in order to establish a prima facie case of wage discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, a plaintiff must show that the employer paid employees of the opposite sex different wages for substantially similar work. The court reasoned that Dixon had not met this burden, as she failed to provide evidence of any specific male employee who was paid a higher wage for the same work as her.

The court further held that even if Dixon had made a prima facie case of wage discrimination, the University of Toledo had presented evidence that the wage differential was based on factors other than sex, such as education and experience. Therefore, the court found in favor of the University of Toledo and dismissed Dixon's claim under the Equal Pay Act.

To learn more about Equal Pay Act

https://brainly.com/question/1020025

#SPJ11

Lawyers are required to deliver proficient advocacy to their clients as part of their professional duties. To provide capable representation, one must possess the appropriate expertise, aptitude, meticulousness, etc.

If a lawyer delegates a complicated case to a new colleague without sufficient monitoring or assistance, it may give rise to doubts about the lawyer's fulfillment of their responsibility to be proficient.

In the situation above, the lawyer entrusted an inexperienced associate with the responsibility of leading or witnessing a trial for the first time. Moreover, the associate lacked knowledge about the appropriate legislation and protocol concerning matters related to housing.

Learn more about  attorney  from

https://brainly.com/question/29731616

#SPJ4

True. Associated with offender-provided 'performance crime' material, social media videos have indeed supplied suspect identifications as well as incriminating visual evidence for criminal investigations.

With the widespread use of social media platforms, individuals involved in criminal activities sometimes document and share their illegal acts through videos or other forms of digital content.

Law enforcement agencies and investigators have increasingly relied on social media platforms to gather evidence and identify suspects. When offenders post videos or photos of their criminal activities on social media, they inadvertently provide a digital trail that can be used against them in criminal investigations. These videos may contain incriminating visual evidence that directly links individuals to the crimes they have committed.

Moreover, social media platforms have facilitated the dissemination of such content, allowing it to reach a wide audience. This broader exposure increases the chances of someone recognizing the suspects or being able to provide valuable information to law enforcement. The sharing and re-sharing of these videos can lead to the identification of suspects, generating leads that aid investigators in their efforts to solve crimes.

Law enforcement agencies have been known to monitor social media platforms actively, searching for posts or videos that pertain to criminal activities. They may use advanced technologies and analytics tools to analyze the content and identify potential suspects or connections between individuals involved in criminal behavior.

However, it is essential to note that social media videos can be misleading or manipulated, and caution should be exercised when relying solely on such evidence. The veracity and authenticity of the videos should be carefully assessed and corroborated through additional investigative techniques.

In summary, it is true that social media videos associated with offender-provided 'performance crime' material have supplied suspect identifications and incriminating visual evidence for criminal investigations. These videos, when posted or shared on social media platforms, can inadvertently assist law enforcement agencies in identifying suspects and gathering evidence to support criminal cases. Nonetheless, the authenticity and reliability of such videos should be appropriately assessed to ensure accurate and fair investigations.

Learn more about social media here

https://brainly.com/question/23976852

#SPJ11

One real-life example in which a media myth was exposed by activists involves the case of the "Central Park Five" in the late 1980s.

In 1989, a widely publicized crime occurred in New York City's Central Park, where a female jogger was brutally assaulted and raped. The media coverage at the time sensationalized the incident, and five teenagers of color were accused and convicted of the crime based on confessions they made under duress.

However, over time, activists and advocates began to question the validity of the convictions. The case gained renewed attention in the early 2000s, and evidence came to light suggesting that the confessions were coerced and that DNA evidence did not match any of the accused. A documentary titled "The Central Park Five" was released in 2012, further shedding light on the wrongful convictions and the role of media in perpetuating the myth of their guilt.

Activists and advocates worked tirelessly to challenge the media narrative and raise awareness about the injustices faced by the Central Park Five. Their efforts ultimately led to a successful counterclaim, with the convictions being overturned in 2002, more than a decade after the initial trial.

This case serves as a powerful example of how activists and advocates can expose media myths and challenge public perceptions surrounding crime and deviance-related social problems. By critically examining the evidence and presenting an alternative narrative, they were able to highlight the systemic issues of racial bias, wrongful convictions, and the influence of media sensationalism.

The Central Park Five case not only exposed the injustice suffered by the wrongfully convicted individuals but also sparked important discussions about the role of race, class, and media in shaping public opinion and criminal justice outcomes. It serves as a reminder of the importance of questioning dominant narratives, advocating for the truth, and working towards a more equitable and just society.

Learn more about activists here

https://brainly.com/question/1807476

#SPJ11

False. Unions have not had great success in increasing their membership in the service sector.

Traditionally, unions have been more successful in organizing and increasing their membership in industries such as manufacturing, construction, and transportation, where collective bargaining and labor rights have played significant roles. However, the service sector, which encompasses a wide range of industries such as retail, hospitality, healthcare, and professional services, has historically had lower unionization rates.

Several factors contribute to the challenges unions face in organizing workers in the service sector. These include the nature of the work itself, which often involves a high degree of part-time, temporary, or contract employment. The decentralized and fragmented nature of service sector workplaces also makes it more difficult for unions to reach and organize workers effectively.

Additionally, certain legal and regulatory frameworks in some countries may pose obstacles to unionization efforts in the service sector. Anti-union tactics employed by employers, lack of awareness or interest among service sector workers, and cultural or societal factors may further hinder unionization in this sector.

While there have been instances of successful unionization efforts in specific segments of the service sector, such as healthcare or education, overall, unions have faced challenges in increasing their membership in this industry.

In recent years, there have been some initiatives and campaigns to unionize workers in the service sector, particularly in areas like fast food and gig economy platforms. However, the success rate in significantly increasing union membership in the service sector remains relatively limited compared to other industries.

In summary, the statement that unions have had great success in increasing their membership in the service sector is false. While there have been some organizing efforts and successes in specific segments, the service sector generally presents challenges that have impeded significant unionization gains.

Learn more about Unions here

https://brainly.com/question/29031688

#SPJ11

The Judge was likely concerned with the release of the records because they could make certain people look bad, or could be used to manipulate people for personal gain, rather than solely for the pursuit of justice.

The sensitive nature of the documents could create privacy issues for those involved, and some documents may contain false information or be leaked without the permission of all parties involved. Furthermore, many documents may contain information regarding protected classes, which could create potential legal issues.

Lastly, the release of the records would be a departure from precedent, as some documents in public files may not have been meant to be widely distributed. Therefore, the Judge was likely hesitant with the release of the records due to these ethical considerations.

To know more about Judge , click here:

https://brainly.com/question/16726610

#SPJ4

Amicus curiae briefs are filed at the disposition stage of the court process is a false statement.

What are amicus curiae briefs? An amicus curiae brief is a document submitted by an individual or group who is not directly involved in a lawsuit but who has an interest in the case's outcome. Amicus curiae briefs are typically filed in appellate cases rather than trial court cases.

Amicus curiae briefs are submitted to the court by interested parties, who are referred to as amici curiae or friends of the court. The document gives the court additional context on the legal issues at stake, provides a different perspective on the facts, and can aid the court in deciding the case.

It is usually filed by persons or organizations who have a strong interest in the subject matter of a lawsuit but are not directly involved in it. Amicus briefs may be filed in both trial and appellate court cases. However, they are usually filed at the appellate level.

Learn more about Amicus curiae here https://brainly.com/question/15520019

#SPJ11