Case Research Assignment

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 142
  • Published : April 24, 2013
Open Document
Text Preview
Case Research Assessment
Baker College
John M. Cleare
LAW/211
April 25, 2012

Instructor: Professor Marcus Ellison

CASE 1
Concept of Intentional Tort: (Orlando v. Cole)
~Background on Case~
* Short History of Events Up to the Case
Joseph M. Orlando was representing a seventeen-year-old student who claimed that Garrick F. Cole’s client, Thomas A. Atwater, sexually assaulted her. Orlando personally knew Atwater and was approached by Atwater without his attorney present(Cole). Atwater verbally admitted that he did indeed was guilty of the sexual harassment charged, the signed an affidavit & and released a full confession to the police. According to Manganis (2008), “A one-paragraph police report filed on Feb. 27 refers to Atwater writing a statement for police. In that statement, he also wrote, "While watching the TV I rubbed her back under her sweatshirt and then began to rub her fanny." He told police she left abruptly but blamed that on her concern about being a junior operator. "I realized I should not have touched her that way and was feeling horribly," he wrote.” * Date of Case and where the case was argued(jurisdiction)

Date of Case: February 12, 2010

Case was argued: Appeals Court of Massachusetts

* List the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s)
Plaintiff: Joseph M. Orlando
Defendant: Garrick F. Cole
* Key arguments presented by both sides

Plaintiff Argument: Joseph M. Orlando alleges that Garrick E. Cole, both who are lawyers, “suffered harm to his reputation as an attorney as a result of comments made by Cole to newspaper reporters about Orlando’s role in a criminal investigation involving Cole’s client(Miller, Clarkson, & Cross, 2011, p. 119).” Defendant Argument: Cole argued that Orlando’s signed affidavit was, “inaccurate and called Orlando’s actions deceitful and fraudulent(Miller, Clarkson, & Cross, 2011, p. 120).”

* Outcome of the case and any appeal

The court concluded, “that the comments at issue are susceptible of a defamatory connotation because each of the terms use “inaccurate,” “fraudulent,” and “deceitful” implies misconduct(Miller, Clarkson, & Cross, 2011, p. 120).” In the end, the court decided not to dismiss the case but actually mandated the case to trial court for more extensive review.

* Ruling by the court, reasoning, and any dissenting opinions

The court reasoned that, “within the context of the article, a reader could view Cole’s comments as based on undisclosed defamatory facts, they are not protected under the First Amendment(Miller, Clarkson, & Cross, 2011, p. 120).”

CASE 2
Concept of a Crime: (Miranda v. Arizona)
~Background on Case~
* Short History of Events Up to the Case

Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape, however when arrested, “Miranda was at no time advised that he had a right to remain silent and a right to have a lawyer present(Miller, Clarkson, & Cross, 2011, p. 190).” At the top of his confession it mentioned that he comments would be made with full knowledge of his legal rights, however the fact remains that he was not fully acknowledged of his legal rights.

* Date of Case and where the case was argued(jurisdiction)

Date of Case: February 28, 1966

Case was argued: Supreme Court of the United States

* List the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s)
Plaintiff: State of Arizona
Defendant: Ernesto Miranda

* Key arguments presented by both sides

Plaintiff Argument: The state of Arizona argued that they had a written confession from Miranda, relating to the kidnapping and rape of the eighteen-year-old woman, and that the confession was made out of Miranda’s own volition.

Defendant Argument: Miranda argued that, “he had not been informed of his constitutional rights(Miller, Clarkson, & Cross, 2011, p. 190).”

* Outcome of the case and any appeal

According to the text, “The United States Supreme Court held that Miranda could not be...
tracking img