Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: United States V Alcoholic Beverage - 1,644 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

of itself does not constitute reckless behavior. However, Woody, retrieving out of his photographic memory, cites the courts opinion and facts in Gill v. State. Similarly to your situation, the defendant was intoxicated, speeding, and weaving in and out lane when, without even attempting to stop, she hit a stationary vehicle. Coincidently, the arresting officer also found several beer containers in the backseat of her car. Consequently, the court found her guilty of aggravated assault.

The court reasoned, speeding is not necessarily reckless conduct. Speeding while intoxicated, however, is reckless conduct. Therefore, since we have two eyewitnesses willing to testify to the manner in which you were driving and it is undisputed that you were drunk at the time of the accident, it is almost certain that the jury will throw the book at you, predicted the Sheriff / future prosecutor. On this note, Donald's body sank to the floor and his hope descended into despair.

Enter Donald's lawyer. The Sheriff begins to tell her about all of the charges that he wishes to prosecute Donald with. Furthermore, he says that he plans to testify as to what Donald told him at the initial stop. Donald's lawyer begins contending that the statements made will not be admissible in the Texas Court because the Fifth Amendment protects him from self-incrimination. The two begin arguing and, of course, the sheriff is prepared to back his claims up with statutes and case law.

According to the Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 38. 22, 5 (Vernon 1979).

Nothing in this article precludes the admission of a statement made by the accused that is the res gentle of the arrest or of the offense, or of a statement that does not stem from custodial interrogation or of a voluntary statement whether or not the result of custodial interrogation For instance, Counselor, in McBride v. State, the defendant was pulled over for weaving back and forth between lanes and was subsequently convicted for driving under the influence. This case is pertinent to the case-in-chief because this is the exact same offense that your client was pulled over for. More importantly, the court allowed the admittance of the statement that the defendant made in the initial stop as res gentle, claimed Woody.

The lawyer replied that the case he cited is not an opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; therefore, she will be able to find a stronger case that contradicts that opinion. Well, maybe you should look at the opinion from the High Court on Calhoun v. State, suggested Woody. In that situation, the defendant was convicted and the statement mad prior to Miranda warning was admitted because it was made voluntarily during the investigatory process of a general on- the-scene questioning of an officer. This is relevant to the situation because this is precisely what happened during our encounter with one another.

Not to mention the similarity of the incriminating stolen goods laying in the plain view of the officer. The lawyer did not know that she was dealing with the biggest birdbrain ever when she met Woody; however, she assumed that he was not that knowledgeable on Federal Law because he generally did not deal with those types of cases. Well, at least Ill be able to have it suppressed in Federal Court, assumed the Counselor. I wouldnt bet on it Counselor, advised Woody.

He then quoted 18 USCS 3501 (d) (Law. Co-op. 1993). Nothing in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at the time which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or detention. Therefore, as you know, your client was not under arrest so that statute shall not bar any statement made by him, claimed Woody.

This claim has significant backing because in Berkemer v. McCarty the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the initial traffic stop of a car does not render one in custody for the purposes of the Miranda warning. This case is directly applicable to the case-in-chief because the defendant was also pulled over for weaving in and out of his traffic lane and was convicted for the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (and drugs). After the defendant was pulled over, he told the officer that he had recently drank alcohol and smoked some marihuana. The Supreme Court said that this statement was admissible in court because the traffic stop, by itself, did not render [the defendant] in custody. Therefore, it is clear that the Supreme Court does not see it unconstitutional for one to be pulled over for a traffic violation and not read his or her rights.

Because Donald made a statement before being read his rights while he was not in custodial interrogation, it is certain that this statement will be admissible in any court due to the strength the Supreme Courts decision. To further strength this claim one should also look at the Fifth Circuit Courts decision in United States v. Marzett. In this case, a man was approached by the police and asked, where did he hide the gun? The court ruled that this statement was admissible because the defendant was not in custody for the sake of Miranda. This has been an apparent precedent throughout State and Federal Courts throughout the years.

For example, the Fifth Circuit also handed down a ruling in United States v. Sabin admitting a statement by the defendant that was unsolicited and not in response to interrogation (as was Donald's statement). Goofy sought to file a claim against Donald and his cousins when he found out that Disney Inc. employed them as actors. Therefore, he went to a lawyers office to find if he has standing to file a suit. The lawyer advised him that under Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 41. 003 (a) (3) (Vernon 1997). , he would be able to bring a suit against Goofy for negligence and he may be awarded punitive damages. The statute reads, exemplary damages may be awarded only if the claimant proves by clear and convincing evidence that the harm with respect to which the claimant seeks recovery of exemplary damages results from: (3) malice According to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.

Code Ann. 41. 001 (7) (B). , Malice means (B) an act or omission: (i) which when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the actor at the time of its occurrence involves an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others; and (ii) of which the actor has actual, subjective awareness of the risk of the risk involved but nevertheless proceeds with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, and welfare of others. This statute is applicable to Goofy's case because, when the accident happened, Donald was speeding a seriously impaired due to his intoxication. According to Soriano v. Medina, intoxication of a motorist involved in accident is an important factor in determining negligence. In this case, a motorist was being sued by a victim of an accident and the police found alcoholic beverage containers inside his car. Furthermore, the police also testified that the person was intoxicated at the time.

Needless to say, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff (which was affirmed by the appellate court); It awarded him damages for loss of wages, pain, and mental anguish This has direct applicability to Donald's case because he was intoxicated at the time of the accident; the police found beer containers in his car, and he was clearly negligent in every sense of the word. Goofy will not be able to win a suit against Huey, Louie, or Dewy because they are classified as social hosts. According to the Tex. Alco.

Bev. Code Ann. 2. 01 (Vernon). , Provider means a person who sells or serves an alcoholic beverage under the authority of a license or permit who otherwise sells an alcoholic beverage to an individual. The cousins were entertaining friends at their home; therefore, they were considered as social hosts under Texas Law and not providers. According to the Supreme Court of Texas, social hosts have no common law duty to avoid making alcohol available to guests.

In Graff v. Beard, a motorist left a party intoxicated and hit a motorcycle rider who subsequently filed suit on the motorist and the hosts of the party. The Supreme Court dismissed the claim against the social hosts saying that it is ones own duty to control the amount of alcohol he or she drinks and it is not reasonable to impose this duty on a host. 2) United States v. Duckett, 583 F. 2 d 1309 (5 th Cir. 1978). 3) United States v. Games, 745 F. 2 d 952 (5 th Cir. 1984). 4) Ball v. State, 530 S.

W. 2 d 123 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). 5) Sneed v. State, 964 S. W. 2 d 764 (Tex. App.

Texarkana 1998, no pet. ). 6) Vaughn v. State, 493 S. W. 2 d 524 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1972). 7) Gill v. State, 981 S. W. 2 d 517 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1998, no pet. ). 8) Jaynes v. State, 673 S.

W. 2 d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). 9) Adams v. State, 969 S. W. 2 d 106 (Tex. App.

Dallas 1998, no pet. ). 12) Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U. S. 420 (1984). 13) United States v. Marzett, 526 F. 2 d 277 (5 th Cir. 1976). 14) United States v. Sabin, 526 F. 2 d 857 (5 Cir. 1976). 15) Soriano v.

Medina, 648 S. W. 2 d 427 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1983, no writ). 16) Graff v. Beard, 858 S. W. 2 d 918 (Tex. 1993).

Bibliography:


Free research essays on topics related to: alcoholic beverage, fifth circuit, supreme court, courts decision, united states v

Research essay sample on United States V Alcoholic Beverage

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com