Drugs Accident Essay

1.An undercover drug reservoir learned from a mutual friend that Philip Friedman knew where to get marijuana. The author asked Friedman three times to get him nigh marijuana, and Friedman adjudged after the third request. Shortly thereafter, Friedman sold the looker a small measuring of the drug. The informant later offered to sell Friedman three pounds of marijuana. They negotiated the price and then made the sale. Friedman was tried for trafficking in drugs. He argued entrapment. Was Friedman entrapped? agate line for Friedman The undercover agent had to ask three times before Friedman sold him a small amount of drugs. A real drug dealer, predisposed to commit the crime, leaps at an opportunity to sell. If the government spends time and coin luring innocent people into the commission of crimes, all of us are the losers. Argument for the Government Government officials hazard Friedman of being a sophisticated drug dealer, and they were right. When he had a chance to buy thr ee pounds, a quantity simply a dealer would purchase, he not only did so, but he bargained with skill, exhibit a working knowledge of the business. Friedman was not entrappedhe was caught.I agree with Friedman not only did the informant ask for drugs, but he asked him constantly after he said no which could acquit easily influenced Friedman to sell the informant the drugs.2. Conley owned video poker machines. Although they are outlawed in Pennsylvania, he set them in bars and clubs. He used profits from the machines to buy more machines. Is he guilty of cash laundering?Yes he is guilty of money laundering because he took the proceeds of a criminal act as and used the money to promote the crime of his poker machines.3.Karin made illegal firearm purchases at a gun show. At her mental test, she alleged that she had committed this crime because her boyfriend had threatened to harm her and her two daughters if she did not. Her attorneyasked the judge to instruct the jury that the prosecution had an obligation to prove beyond a reasonable distrust that Karin had acted freely. Instead, the judge told the jury that Karin had the burden of proving duress by a preponderance of the evidence. Who is correct?The judge is correct. In this situation Karin is trying to plead not guilty because she was under duress, so she will have to have evidence to prove that she acted under duress4. An informant bought drugs from Dorian. The police force obtained a pursuit warrant to search Dorians house. But before they acted on the warrant, they sent the informant back to try again. This time, Dorian said he did not have any drugs. The police then acted on the warrant and searched his house. Did the police have probable cause?Yes because the informant had claimed to bought drugs from Dorian before.5.Shawn was caught stealing letters from mailboxes. After pleading guilty, he was sentenced to two months in prison and three years supervised release. One of the supervised release conditions needed him to stand outside a post means for eight hours wearing a signboard stating, I stole mail. This is my punishment. He appealed this requirement on the grounds that it constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Do you agree?Yes. The punishment will be breaking the eight amendment because of standing outside a post office holding a sign stating I stole mail will not only be degrading, but also an unusual and cruel punishment.1.At approximately 750 p.m, bells at the go after property rang and red lights flashed, signaling an express trains approach. David Harris walked onto the tracks, ignoring a yellow line painted on the platform instructing people to stand back. Two men shouted to Harris, warning him to get off the tracks. The trains engineer saw him too late to stop the train, which was traveling at approximately 55 mph. The train struck and killed Harris as itpassed through the station. Harriss widow sued the railroad, arguing that the railroads failure cau sed her husbands death. Evaluate her argument. Harris wife really does not have an argument because the railroad did everything in their power to prevent his death. Harris will be at fault for his own death2. Ryder leased a truck to Florida food service powers, an employee, drove it to make deliveries . He noticed that the thresh used to snug the rear door was frayed, and he asked Ryder to fix it. Ryder failed to do so in spite of numerous requests. The strap broke, and Powers replaced it with a nylon rope. Later, when Powers was attempting to close the rear door, the nylon rope broke and he overlook, sustaining severe injuries to his neck and back. He sued Ryder. The trial court found that Powers attachment of the replacement rope was a superseding cause, relieving Ryder of any liability, and minded(p) summary judgment for Ryder. Powers appealed. How should the appellate court rule. The decision should be based on the state laws of causative or comparative negligence because a lthough Powers told Ryder to fix the rope you can make the same argument that by Powers switching ropes also help contributed to his injury.3. A new truck, manufactured by General Motors Corp. (GMC), stalled in burster hour traffic on a busy interstate highway because of a defective alternator, which caused a complete failure of the trucks electrical system. The driver stood nearby and waved traffic around his stalled truck. A panel truck approached the GMC truck, and immediately behind the panel truck, Davis was driving a Volkswagen fastback. Because of the panel truck, Davis was unable to rule the stalled GMC truck. The panel truck swerved out of the way of the GMC truck, and Davis drove straight into it. The happening killed him. Daviss widow sued GMC. GMC travel for summary judgment, alleging Gmc could be violators of Negligence Per Se because the brand new automobile should have nothing improper with it that could threaten the lives of drivers automobiles should be created to protect drivers as much as possible. Gmc is responsible for factual causation and foreseeable harm. By giving the man a defective vehicle I believe any accident which happened on the road or streets can be foreseeable.4. You be the Judge Writing Problem When doubting Thomas and Susan Tamplin were shopping at Star Lumber with their six-year-old daughter Ann Marie, a 150-pound roll of vinylflooring fell on the girl, seriously injuring her head and pituitary gland. Ann was clearly entitled to acquire for the physical harm, such as her fractured skull. The plaintiffs also sought recovery for potential future harm. Their medical expert was prepared to testify that although Ann would probably develop normally, he could not rule out the slight possibility that her pituitary injury talent prevent her from sexually maturing. Is Ann entitled to damages for future harm? Argument for Ann This was a major trauma, and it is impracticable to know the full extent of the future harm. Sexual m aturation is a fundamental part of bread and butter if there is a possibility that Ann will not develop normally, she is entitled to present her case to a jury and receive damages. Argument for Star Lumber A plaintiff may not recover for speculative harm. The slight possibility that Ann could fail to develop is not enough for her to take her case to the jury. If I was the judge I would not rule out the possibility that Ann could suffer harm in the future. I would request that Ann obtain documents from doctors that will help prove that the accident that happened could cause future damages.5. Irving was a lawyer who prepared income tax returns for Maroevich. Irving agreed to draft a will for Maroevich, leaving all of the property to Maroevichs sister, Biakanja. When Maroevich died, the probate court refused to accept the will because Irving had failed to have the signatures properly witnessed. As a result, Biakanja inherited only one-eighth of the estate. She sued Irving, who defende d by saying that he had no duty of due care to Biakanja because all his dealings were with Maroevich and none were with her. Do you agree?