Legal Cases Are Crucial For Understanding The Law; They Shape Our Legal System.

Scenario One

Scenario One

Joanna Spring always insisted that she did not ever want to be kept alive by machines, and even stated that when she was a young teenager. Her parents understood her feelings on the subject. Joanna married Bill Spring and one month later, was involved in an auto accident which left her in a persistent vegetative state. Joanna’s parents (Mr. and Mrs. John Winters) have sued to have Joanna taken off life support. Joanna’s husband refused to allow the hospital to do so. Joanna’s parents thing that it is only because he will not inherit Joanna’s huge estate unless he has been married to her for more than two years. The court sided with Bill Spring, and refused to order the removal of life support. The Winters now want to appeal the decision and let Joanna die in peace before bill becomes Joanna’s heir.

1.Do previous requests with regards to final wishes change when married? Remove from life support request considered a last will and testament? Acting in the best interest of patient.
    
Scenario Two

Shirley Baker is a young woman suffering from breast cancer. She has been on chemotherapy for several months, and has experienced terrible side-effects. She did receive a prescription for the medicinal use of marijuana while living in California, but moved to Oklahoma to be closer to her family. She did take several ounces of marijuana with her when she moved, and was arrested while smoking marijuana on the front porch of her parent’s home, the evening she arrived in Oklahoma. She was convicted of illegal possession of the drug, and wants to appeal her conviction.

1. Does Oklahoma recognize medical marijuana? Does California’s prescription law carry over to Oklahoma?

Scenario Three

Joe Valle and Fred Hamper have been partners for many years. When same sex unions became legal in California, they moved there just long enough to be married, and then returned to their home in Georgia. Joe applied for health insurance for himself and his spouse. The insurance company refused to recognize the marriage, and Joe and Fred sued. The trial court found in favor of Big Time Insurance Company, and Joe and Fred want to appeal.

For this case, due to limited access, I used Maryland in place of Georgia as they do not allow same sex marriages.

1. Does Georgia recognize marriages performed in other jurisdictions?

2. Are same sex marriages recognized by the state? ( I searched Loislaw for same sex marriage doing a power search with only bar publications and other selected as libraries)

3.1 95 Op. Att'y Gen. 3 (2010)

3.2 Yes

3.3 No – the state works under “comity” or the recognition of other jurisdictions laws.  It has recognized common law marriage, a marriage between and uncle and niece, both of which are not legal marriages in Maryland due to this.

3.4 These are all opinions of the Attorney General of Maryland and are secondary.  

The opinion also states:

There are no formal prerequisites to recognition of an out-of-state marriage. Maryland courts observe "the general rule that a marriage valid where contracted or solemnized is valid everywhere, unless it is contrary to the public policy of the forum." Henderson, 199 Md. at 458

Scenario Four

Flora Findley loves plants. She had become interested in hydroponics and hybridizing plants. She began growing plants under full-spectrum sunlight lamps in her home. She also has a teenaged son who expressed an interest in growing plants. She was pleased that she and her son could share an interest. One day, a police officer investigating a burglary next door, came to Flora’s home to ask if she had seen anything. He noticed all of the plants growing under the lamps, and quickly began inspecting them. He found a small plant that he thought was marijuana, and promptly arrested Flora. Flora was convicted for possession, but insisted that the search of her home was unwarranted. She wants to appeal the decision.

Did flora let the officer in? Does growing plants constitute reasonable suspicion? Was the plant in plain sight?

Scenario Five

Mr. Frank Incense was arrested for theft when he took $500,000 worth of tools from behind a neighbor’s shed which faced an alley. Frank insisted that he thought the tools were being thrown away. He was having financial difficulty and thought he could make some money by selling the tools. While being questioned, Frank asked for an attorney. Finally he was provided with an attorney who specialized in Bankruptcy Law, and who was required to take on criminal cases pro bono. The attorney really did not understand criminal procedure, and as a result, Mr. Insence was not only found guilty, but also received a very stiff sentence. Mr. Insence wants to appeal his case because he believes that he not only had a right to counsel, but a right to counsel who was competent in handling criminal proceedings.

Did Incense receive competent counsel?

Scenario Two

The search query in the present case is if the last wishes of Joanna Spring can be fulfilled, particularly in view of the fact that her husband is not willing to acknowledge these wishes. On the other hand, the parents of Joanna believe that Bill Spring is interested in keeping Joanna alive due to the reason that there is a clause according to which Bill will not be able to inherit Joana's estate unless he's been married to Joanna for two years. As the first searches were not successful, the legal issue had to be redefined.

A living will allows a person to put into writing division is also a person regarding medical treatment for the end of life of such a person in case the person is not capable of communicating these which is directly. This document has been given different names in different States. However, regardless of the name of such a document, the purpose of this document is to guide the family and the doctors in making a decision regarding the use of medical treatment for the person at the end of life (Leahman, 2004). There are several cases in which the legal right provided by the Constitution to accept or refuse treatment has been acknowledged. It needs to be noted in this regard that there are certain events in case of which, the current last will of a person automatically changes. These events are managed, divorced and having children. Therefore, keeping in view this position of law, it can be said that the previous requests regarding final wishes also change after marriage. In this regard, it is also important to act in the best interest of the patient. Winters can appeal the decision on the ground that Joanna should be allowed to die in piece and should not be made to wait for two years so that Bill can inherit her estate.

The search query in this case is if the medical prescription received by Shirley Baker in California is valid in Oklahoma or not. The first searches were successful in this case. Shirley had a medical prescription for marijuana in California but she decided to move to Oklahoma. However she was rested in Oklahoma for smoking marijuana. Therefore the question arises if California's prescription law can also be considered as applicable in Oklahoma. In order to decide this question first of all it needs to be decided if medical marijuana is recognized in Oklahoma. It needs to be noted in this regard that Oklahoma does not recognize medical marijuana. Therefore while going to other states, medical marijuana patients may face difficulties because there are many states that do not allow bringing their medical marijuana. As a result, if medical marijuana laws are not applicable in a particular State, the person can be arrested under possession laws. The situation remains the same even if the patient has been registered in his or her home State. On the basis of this discussion, it can be said that in the present case, California's prescription law is not applicable in Oklahoma because medical marijuana is not recognized in Oklahoma.

Scenario Three

The search query in the present case is if the same sex marriage between Joe Valle and Fred Hamper can be considered as valid in Georgia. In this case also the first searches were successful. In this regard, the Constitution of George clearly mentions in Article I Section IV that marriage shall be recognized only as the union of man and woman. Therefore, is that takes place between the persons of same sex are prohibited in Georgia. It has also been mentioned that the union between the persons of same sex shall not be recognized by Georgia as being entitled for the benefits of marriage. In this regard it has further been mentioned that your gesture not give effect to any public act, record or proceeding of any other State regarding the relationship between the persons of same that is considered as a managed under the laws of such State. Similarly, it has also been mentioned that the courts of Georgia will have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance regarding any such relationship. On the basis of discussion, it can be clearly stated that the trial court appears to be correct when it gave its decision in favor of Big Time Insurance Company.

The search query in this case is if the search conducted by the police officer is valid or not. The first searches were successful and relevant results were obtained. The most relevant result was the case of Horton v. California. In this regard, it can be claimed by Flora that the search conducted by the police officer had violated the ban imposed by the Fourth Amendment on unreasonable searches and seizures (United States v. Gray). However, it is not likely that Flora will be successful in this plea. The reason is that the police officer had visited the place in order to investigate another kind that has taken place in a nearby house. As a result, it can be said that the police officer was lawfully present there and the plants were in plain view (Cervantes, 2001). As a result, the police officer saw the plants. In this regard the doctrine of plain view that was propounded by the court in Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990), an item can be seized by the police officer that is in plain view and the criminal nature of that particular item is apparent immediately. The only requirement prescribed in this regard is that the officer should be lawfully present in the place where he saw the item (Minnesota v. Dickerson). As a result, in the present case is the police officer was capable of immediately telling that the item was probably marijuana and the plants could have been seen by the officer in plain view, it is likely that the search and seizure made by such officer will stand upon in an appeal preferred by Flora.

The search query in the present case is if Mr. Incense has received inefficient assistance from his counsel. In this case also the first searches were successful and therefore there was no need to redefine the legal question. In Strickland v Washington, the United States Supreme Court provided the test that can be used for deciding ineffective assistance of the Counsel (Rigg, 2007). Therefore, for the purpose of establishing ineffective assistance of the counsel, it is required that Mr. Incense should establish that the performance of the autonomy was below the performance required by an objective standard of reasonableness used in the legal profession (McKay, 2013). At the same time, Mr. Incense is also required to establish that he had suffered a prejudice due to the inefficient counsel. In order to prove this prejudice, it is required that Mr. Incense should show that if these deficiencies would not have been present on part of his counsel, he would have received a different outcome (Kastenberg, 2013).

References

Casey Scott McKay, (2013) Constitutional Law-the Plea-Bargaining Process-Mr. Counsel, Please Bargain Effectively for Your Client's Sixth Amendment Rights, Otherwise the Trial Court Will Be Forced to Reoffer the Plea Deal and Then Exercise Discretion in Resentencing, 82 Miss. L.J. 731

Cervantes, Jorge (2001). Indoor Marijuana Horticulture. Van Patten Publishing

Kastenberg, Joshua E, (2013) "Nearing Thirty Years: The Burger Court, Strickland v. Washington, and the Parameters of the Right to Counsel," Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 14 J. App. Prac. & Proc 215

Leahman D (2004). "Why the Patient Self-Determination Act has failed". N C Med J 65 (4): 249–51.

Rigg, Robert R. (2007). "The T-Rex without Teeth: Evolving Strickland v. Washington and the Test for Ineffective Assistance of Counsel". Pepperdine Law Review 35 (1): 77–105.

Yates JL, Glick HR (1997). "The failed Patient Self-Determination Act and policy alternatives for the right to die". J Aging Soc Policy 9 (4): 29–50

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668

United States v. Gray, 78 F. Supp. 2d 524

Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993)