DOCSLIB.ORG

ACCOMPLICES Competence and Compellability Of, 20:30.10 Corroboration Warning, 34:50, 34:70.20 ACCUSED Admissions by As Hearsay Exception, See HEARSAY RULE Appeals By

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ACCOMPLICES Competence and Compellability Of, 20:30.10 Corroboration Warning, 34:50, 34:70.20 ACCUSED Admissions by As Hearsay Exception, See HEARSAY RULE Appeals By INDEX ACCOMPLICES competence and compellability of, 20:30.10 corroboration warning, 34:50, 34:70.20 ACCUSED admissions by as hearsay exception, See HEARSAY RULE appeals by. See APPEALS character of. See CHARACTER EVIDENCE compellability of. See COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY; SELF- INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST competence of. See COMPETENCE AND COMPELLABILITY confessions by. See CONFESSIONS court interpreter, right to. See COURT INTERPRETERS cross-examination of. See CROSS-EXAMINATION evidential burden on, 27:30 failure to testify. See ADVERSE INFERENCES innocence. See INNOCENCE persuasive burden on, 28:30 previous convictions of. See PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS prior consistent statements by. See PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS statements to sureties, 35:40.20 ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE, see also EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE bail hearings, at, 35:10, 35:30.30.30, 35:40 circumstantial evidence. See CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE confession. See CONFESSIONS confidential communications. See PRIVILEGE documentary evidence. See DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE exculpatory statements, 11:40.40.20 expert opinion evidence. See EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE lay witness opinion evidence, 12:20.10 relevance and, 4:40 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) approach to. See SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, evidentiary reforms testimony in prior proceedings, 7:120.20 ADMISSIONS by accused. See HEARSAY RULE formal. See FORMAL AND INFORMAL ADMISSIONS IN-1 2015Ð1 MCWILLIAMS' CANADIAN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ADMISSIONS Ð continued informal. See FORMAL AND INFORMAL ADMISSIONS remand, 35:10 ADVERSE INFERENCES accused's failure to act, from, 33:10.10 accused's failure to testify, from, 33:10.10 accused' silence, from, 33:10.10 alibi defence, re failure to testify, 33:10.10 late disclosure, 33:10.10 alternatives to alternative language for instructions, 33:20.20.10 Crown's case, 33:20.20.20 defence case, 33:20.20.10 generally, 33:20 instruction as last resort, 33:20.20.10 issue preclusion, 33:20.10 reasonable doubt instruction, 33:20.20.20 removing defence from jury, 33:20.20.10 best evidence principle and, 33:20 Brown v. Dunn, rule in, 33:10.40 Canada Evidence Act, s. 4(6) prohibition, 33:10.10 comments respecting by Crown and trial judge, 33:10.10, 33:20.20.10 confession, failure to record or investigate, from, 33:10.20, 33:20.20.20 Criminal Code, s. 258(3), under, 33:10.10 dangers of, 33:20.10 defence witnesses, 33:10.50 exculpatory evidence, 33:10.60 failure to confront witness with contradictory evidence, 33:10.40, 33:20.20.10 failure to preserve or investigate evidence, from Charter s. 7 rights and, 33:10.20 confession, 33:10.20 electronic evidence, history of, 33:20 inadequate investigation, and, 33:20.20.10, 33:20.20.20 jury instructions re failure to confront witness, 33:10.40, 33:20.20.10 failure to preserve or investigate evidence, 33:10.20 missing witness, 33:10.30, 33:20.20.10 reasonable doubt, 33:20.20.20 ``special'' instruction, 33:10.40, 33:20.20.10 limited use of to assess credibility, 33:10.10, 33:20.20.10 Lyttle case, 33:10.40, 33:20, 21:30.40.50.50 application to cross-examination of defence witness, 21:30.40.50.50 IN-2 INDEX ADVERSE INFERENCES Ð continued Lyttle case Ð continued ``good faith'' requirement, 33:20, 21:30.40.50.50 mandatory inference, 33:20 mental disorder defence, re refusal to be examined, 33:10.10 nature of, 33:20 permissive, inference, 33:10.30, 33:20 prohibited Cleghorn exception, 33:10.10 generally, 33:10.10 Marcoux exception, 33:10.10 Noble exception, 33:10.10, 33:20.20.10 Sweeney exception, 33:10.10 purpose of, 33:20 right to silence and, 33:10.10 reverse onus danger, 33:20.10 sexual assault cases delayed disclosure, 33:10.60 ADVERSE WITNESS, 21:20.30.60 ALIBI disbelief of. See CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE disproof of, 21:50.90.20 failure of accused to give proper notice of, 33:10.10 failure of accused to testify in support of, 33:10.10 APPEALS appellate court, role of, 37:20 common law basis, 37:10 corroboration warning. See CORROBORATION evidentiary issues first raised on appeal, 37:110 balance of interests approach, 37:110 discretion to consider, 37:110 failure to object, 37:110 state of law, 37:110 strength of submission factor, 37:110 evidentiary record, applications to expand, 37:40 credibility issue, 37:40.20 Crown applications, 37:40.50 decisive issue requirement, 37:40.10 due diligence requirement, 37:40.40 effect on result requirement, 37:40.30 factors considered, 37:40 Palmer test, 37:40 evidentiary rulings, deference re, 37:100 factual errors, 37:90 IN-3 2015Ð2 MCWILLIAMS' CANADIAN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE APPEALS Ð continued fresh evidence, admission of, 37:30 application, re, 37:30.50 competing interests of justice, as factor, 37:30.10 criteria, 37:30.60 Crown applications, 37:40.50 Crown disclosure obligations, 37:30.30, 37:50 ``interests of justice'' factor, 37:30.10 other forums and references, 37:40.60 powers of appellate court, 37:30.20 sentencing appeals. See sentencing appeals, fresh evidence in third party records, 37:30.40 validity of trial process. See trial validity, fresh evidence re history of appellate review, 37:10 misapprehension of evidence by trial judge, 37:90 sentencing appeals, fresh evidence in, 37:70 Crown sentence appeals, 37:70.30 post-sentence good conduct, 37:70.10 social context evidence, 37:70.20 statutory right, 37:10 trial validity, fresh evidence re, 37:60 ineffective assistance of counsel, 37:60.10 undisclosed evidence, 37:50 fair trial analysis, 37:50 ``reasonable possibility'' criteria, 37:50 verdict reliability factor, 37:50 verdicts, unreasonable, 37:50, 37:80 appellate court powers, 37:80.10 grounds, articulation of, 37:80.10 inconsistent verdicts, 37:80.40 nature of findings in issue, 37:80.20 reasons for judgment, reasonableness of, 37:80.30 test, re, 37:80.10 ARREST confessions on. See CONFESSIONS AUDIO-VISUAL RECORDINGS. See REAL EVIDENCE BAIL HEARINGS admissibility of evidence issues, 35:10 Charter bail rights s. 11(e), 35:10, 35:30.10.10 evidence on review, 35:60 evidentiary requirements for release (CC s. 518(1)), 35:30 constitutional requirements, 35:30.10.10 deemed admissible evidence, 35:30.30.30 ``evidence'', nature of (s. 518(1)(e)), 35:30.10 jurisdictional limits of inquiry (s. 518(1)(a)), 35:30.20 IN-4 INDEX BAIL HEARINGS Ð continued evidentiary requirements for release (CC s. 518(1)) Ð continued ``other relevant evidence'', 35:30.30.10 bad character evidence, 35:30.30.10 Gladue principles, 35:30.30.10 (The next page is IN-5) IN-4.1 2013Ð1 INDEX BAIL HEARINGS Ð continued evidentiary requirements for release (CC s. 518(1)) Ð continued ``other relevant evidence'' Ð continued plan for release, evidence of, 35:30.30.10 ``public confidence'', 35:30.30.10 public fear and concern, evidence of, 35:30.30.10 s. 515(10)(c) analysis, importance of four factors, 35:30.30.10 spousal or partner violence, 35:30.30.10 pre-trial delay, 35:30.30.40 nature of evidentiary inquiry contemplated by s. 525, 35:30.30.40 pre-trial detention conditions, 35:30.30.20 sworn evidence, 35:30.10 wiretap evidence (CC s. 518(d.2)), 35:30.40 generally, 35:10 inadmissible evidence, 35:40 circumstances of offence (CC s. 515(1)(b)), 35:40.10 prior acquittals, 35:40.30 statements made by accused to sureties, 35:40.20 Charter s. 7 principle against self-incrimination, 35:40.20 irrelevance, collateral fact issues and policy concerns, 35:40.20 questioning of surety as unfair use of court process, 35:40.20 onus of proof, 35:20 reasons, duty to give, 35:50 bail hearing, reasons for judgment in, 35:50.20 general principles, 35:50.10 remand admissions, 35:10 standard of proof, 35:20> BANKING RECORDS, 24:80 BURDEN OF PROOF. See EVIDENTIAL BURDEN; PERSUASIVE BURDEN BUSINESS RECORDS, 24:70 CHARACTER EVIDENCE bad character. See character; exclusionary rule, exceptions to; statutory exceptions to exclusionary rule character, defined, 9:20.10 habit vs, 9:20.40 relevance of, 9:20.20 subjective, assessment of as, 9:20.30 complainant in sexual offences. See SEXUAL OFFENCES credibility and character, 9:30.20 credibility, relevance to, 9:10.10 credibility vs. conduct, 9:20.30 Crown, limitation on, 9:10.20 defined, 9:20.40 IN-5 2015Ð5 MCWILLIAMS' CANADIAN CRIMINAL EVIDENCE CHARACTER EVIDENCE Ð continued exclusionary rule, exceptions to, see also statutory exceptions to exclusionary rule accused puts character in issue, 9:30.20.10.20 character of other suspects, 9:30.20.10.20 conduct of defence, 9:30.20.10.20 Scopelletti defences, 9:30.20.10.20 administration of justice issue, 9:30.20.10.10 conduct, proof of, 9:30.10 credibility, 9:30.20 drug offences, 9:30.20.10.10 inadequate police investigations, allegations re, 9:30.20.10.10 incidental to proper cross-examination, 9:30.20.10.30 lifestyle establishing involvement/means/opportunity, 9:30.20.10.10 motive, and evidence of intent, 9:30.20.10.10 narrative, context and background, 9:30.20.10.10 probative vs. prejudicial value, 9:30.20.10 prosecution's theory of liability, direct relevance, 9:30.20.10.10 relevance to issue, 9:30.20.10.10 state of mind/conduct of witness, 9:30.20.10.10 generally, 9:10 good character of accused, 9:40 admissibility rules, 9:40.10 expert opinion evidence, 9:40.40 relevance, 9:40.40.10. limitation of, 9:40.30.30 proof, manner of, 9:40.30 accused, testimony of, 9:40.30.20 extrinsic proof, 9:40.30.10 reputation rule, 9:40.30.10 putting character in issue, 9:40.10 examples, 9:40.20.10 rebuttal by prosecution, 9:40.50 cross-examination by, 9:40.50.10 extrinsic evidence, 9:40.50.20 timing and mode, 9:40.20 improper cross-examination, examples of, 9:30.20 issue in question, 9:10.10 limiting and use
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Core Principles of the Legal Profession
    CORE PRINCIPLES OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION Resolution ratified on Tuesday October 30, 2018, during the General Assembly in Porto Preamble The lawyer’s role is to counsel, conciliate, represent and defend. In a society founded on respect for the law and for justice, the lawyer advises the client on legal matters, examines the possibility and the appropriateness of finding amicable solutions or of choosing an alternative dispute resolution method, assists the client and represents the client in legal proceedings. The lawyer fulfils the lawyer’s engagement in the interest of the client while respecting the rights of the parties and the rules of the profession, and within the boundaries of the law. Over the years, each bar association has adopted its own rules of conduct, which take into account national or local traditions, procedures and laws. The lawyer should respect these rules, which, notwithstanding their details, are based on the same basic values set forth below. 1 - Independence of the lawyer and of the Bar In order to fulfil fully the lawyer’s role as the counsel and representative of the client, the lawyer must be independent and preserve his lawyer’s professional and intellectual independence with regard to the courts, public authorities, economic powers, professional colleagues and the client, as well as regarding the lawyer’s own interests. The lawyer’s independence is guaranteed by both the courts and the Bar, according to domestic or international rules. Except for instances where the law requires otherwise to ensure due process or to ensure the defense of persons of limited means, the client is free to choose the client’s lawyer and the lawyer is free to choose whether to accept a case.
    [Show full text]
  • National Domestic Violence Prosecution Best Practices Guide Is a Living Document Highlighting Current Best Practices in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence
    The National Domestic Violence Prosecution Best Practices Guide is a living document highlighting current best practices in the prosecution of domestic violence. It was inspired by the Women Prosecutors Section of the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) and a National Symposium on the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases, hosted by the NDAA and Alliance for HOPE International in San Diego in October 2015. The two-day national symposium included 100 of our nation’s leading prosecutors re- envisioning the prosecution of domestic violence cases in the United States. Prosecutors and allied professionals are encouraged to continue developing this guide by contributing information on emerging best practices. NDAA recognizes that funding, local rules, or other state laws or local restrictions may prevent an office from adopting the various approaches suggested. This guide is not intended to replace practices and procedures already in operation, but to simply inform and recommend practices that are effective and consistent throughout the nation. For additional suggested edits to this document, contact [email protected], Chair, Domestic Violence Subcommittee, NDAA Women’s Section. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Victim Recantation, Minimization, and
    [Show full text]
  • The Competency Framework a Guide for IAEA Managers and Staff CONTENT
    @ The Competency Framework A guide for IAEA managers and staff CONTENT INTRODUCTION. .3 1. CORE VALUES . .8 2. CORE COMPETENCIES . 10 COMMUNICATION . 11 TEAMWORK . 12 PLANNING AND ORGANIZING . 13 ACHIEVING RESULTS . 14 3. FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCIES. 15 LEADING AND SUPERVISING . 16 ANALYTICAL THINKING . 17 KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING . 18 JUDGEMENT/DECISION MAKING . 19 TECHNICAL/SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY . 20 CHANGE MANAGEMENT . 21 COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT . 22 PARTNERSHIP BUILDING . 23 CLIENT ORIENTATION . 24 PERSUASION AND INFLUENCING . 25 RESILIENCE . 26 1 INTRODUCTION What is a competency framework? What are the components of the framework? A competency framework is a model that broadly describes The Agency’s competency framework includes core values, performance excellence within an organization. Such a and core and functional competencies. The defi nitions of framework usually includes a number of competencies these components are as follows: that are applied to multiple occupational roles within the organization. Each competency defi nes, in generic Core values are principles that infl uence people’s actions terms, excellence in working behaviour; this defi nition and the choices they make. They are ethical standards that then establishes the benchmark against which staff are are based on the standards of conduct for the international assessed. A competency framework is a means by which civil service and are to be upheld by all staff. organizations communicate which behaviours are required, valued, recognized and rewarded with respect to specifi c Core competencies provide the foundation of the occupational roles. It ensures that staff, in general, have a framework, describing behaviours to be displayed by all staff common understanding of the organization’s values and members.
    [Show full text]
  • Job Profiles and Training for Employment Counsellors
    The European Commission Mutual Learning Programme for Public Employment Services DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion JOB PROFILES AND TRAINING FOR EMPLOYMENT COUNSELLORS Analytical paper September 2012 This publication is commissioned by the European Community Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme is implemented by the European Commission. It was established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union in the employment, social affairs and equal opportunities area, and thereby contribute to the achievement of the EU2020 goals in these fields. The seven-year programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate and pre-candidate countries. For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/progress For more information on the PES to PES Dialogue programme see: http://ec.europa.eu/social/pes-to-pes Editor: DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Unit C3 - Skills, Mobility and Employment Services. Author: dr Łukasz Sienkiewicz, Warsaw School of Economics In collaboration with ICF GHK and the Budapest Institute Please cite this publication as: European Commission (2012), Job profiles and training for employment counsellors, Brussels, Author: Łukasz Sienkiewicz The information contained in this publication does not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European Commission CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... i 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1 1.1 The skills and competences of employment counsellors have been identified as being critical to achieving successful placement outcomes, but little was known about existing profiles, training and career pathways from a comparative perspective ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Witnesses
    Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert This course is provided free of charge and is designed to give a comprehensive discussion of recommended practices for the forensic expert to follow when preparing for and testifying in court. Find this course live, online at: https://law101.training.nij.gov Updated: September 8, 2011 DNA I N I T I A T I V E www.DNA.gov About this Course This PDF file has been created from the free, self-paced online course “Law 101: Legal Guide for the Forensic Expert.” To take this course online, visit https://law101.training. nij.gov. If you already are registered for any course on DNA.gov, you may logon directly at http://law101.dna.gov. Questions? If you have any questions about this file or any of the courses or content on DNA.gov, visit us online at http://www.dna.gov/more/contactus/. Links in this File Most courses from DNA.Gov contain animations, videos, downloadable documents and/ or links to other userful Web sites. If you are using a printed, paper version of this course, you will not have access to those features. If you are viewing the course as a PDF file online, you may be able to use these features if you are connected to the Internet. Animations, Audio and Video. Throughout this course, there may be links to animation, audio or video files. To listen to or view these files, you need to be connected to the Internet and have the requisite plug-in applications installed on your computer.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hearsay Rule As a Rule of Admission Revisited
    THE HEARSAY RULE AS A RULE OF ADMISSION REVISITED Ronald J. Allen* Twenty-four years ago I noted that the transmutation of the rule of hearsay from a rule of exclusion into a rule of admission presaged its death, and I did not mourn its passing: [I]t is only a marginal overstatement to say that today, at least in civil cases, the hearsay rule applies in any robust fashion only to available nonparty witnesses within the subpoena power of the court. And it does not apply to them very rigorously. There are numerous exclusions from the definition of hearsay, twenty-seven formal exceptions, and two provisions explicitly encouraging the ad hoc creation of exceptions, an encouragement, it should be noted, of which much has been made. Moreover, hearsay exceptions, once formed, remain. To my knowledge, there are virtually no examples of hearsay exceptions being eliminated; the dynamic is one of ever-increasing scope for the exceptions . The Federal Rules, in concert with modern discovery principles, are quite clearly the harbinger of [the rule’s] demise. My instinct is that it is a death well-deserved, and after a burial suitable to its station, the hearsay rule should be allowed to lie quietly, undisturbed, for eternity.1 Like the report of Mark Twain’s death, my announcement of the passing of hearsay was exaggerated. It (and I refer here to the federal hearsay rule) remains more or less as it was twenty-four years ago, having undergone only slight expansion.2 * John Henry Wigmore Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law; Fellow, Procedural Law Research Center, and President, Board of Foreign Advisors, Evidence Law and Forensic Science Institute, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying the Correct Standard of Review for Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings Robert E
    University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives Faculty Scholarship 2010 Unscrambling the Confusion: Applying the Correct Standard of Review for Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings Robert E. Steinbuch University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawrepository.ualr.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Robert Steinbuch & Esther Seitz, Unscrambling the Confusion: Applying the Correct Standard of Review for Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings, 34 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 281 (2010). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Bowen Law Repository: Scholarship & Archives. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Unscrambling the Confusion: Applying the Correct Standard of Review for Rape-Shield Evidentiary Rulings Robert Steinbuchl Esther Seitz t Abstract It is well settled that the standardof review applicableto a case may be crucialto its outcome on appeal. This makes claritywith regardto the applicablestandard of the utmost importance to litigants. This Article addressesspecifically the standardused to review trialcourts'decisions to admit or exclude evidence under rape-shieldstatutes. While most jurisdictionsapply an abuse of discretion standard,the authors here examine the inconsistency of the jurisdictionsthat do not. Ultimately, the authors assert that the abuse of discretion standardis the best in these cases and should be appliedby alljurisdictions collectively. Introduction Every appeal requires the application of a standard of review. And in most appeals, that standard controls the legal analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • RULES of PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Effective April 1, 2009 As Amended Through June 1, 2018 with Commentary As Amended Through June 1, 2018
    NEW YORK RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Effective April 1, 2009 As amended through June 1, 2018 With Commentary as amended through June 1, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule Title Page 1.0 Terminology ..................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Competence .................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer .......................................................................................................... 14 1.3 Diligence ........................................................................................................................ 19 1.4 Communication .............................................................................................................. 21 1.5 Fees and Division of Fees .............................................................................................. 24 1.6 Confidentiality of Information ....................................................................................... 29 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients............................................................................... 38 1.8 Current Clients: Specific Conflict of Interest Rules ...................................................... 49 1.9 Duties to Former Clients ................................................................................................ 60 1.10 Imputation of Conflicts
    [Show full text]
  • Published As Chapter 8 in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution
    Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center Scholarly Works Faculty Scholarship 2011 "Competence-Competence and Separability-American Style", published as Chapter 8 in International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution Jack M. Graves Touro Law Center Yelena Davydan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/scholarlyworks Part of the Commercial Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Dispute Resolution and Arbitration Commons, International Law Commons, and the International Trade Law Commons Recommended Citation International Arbitration and International Commercial Law: Synergy, Convergence and Evolution Chapter 8 – Competence-Competence and Separability-American Style Edited by S. Kroll, L.A. Mistelis, et. al. This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Works by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Jack Graves* & Yelena Davydan** CHAPTER 8 COMPETENCE-COMPETENCE AND SEPARABILITY – AMERICAN STYLE 1. INTRODUCTION The doctrines of “separability” and “competence-competence” are often called the cornerstones of international commercial arbitration. Distinct, but very much related, these two doctrines serve, hand in glove, to maximize the effectiveness of arbitration as an efficient means of resolving international commercial disputes and to minimize the temptation and effect of delay tactics. Each of these principles arises from the autonomous nature of the arbitration agreement, even when included as a clause within a broader “container” agreement. “Competence-competence” provides an arbitral tribunal with the power to rule on its own jurisdiction,1 thus avoiding any need to wait for a court determination of the issue and allowing the tribunal to move expeditiously to decide the merits of the parties’ broader contract dispute.
    [Show full text]
  • Scr Chapter 20 Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys
    SCR CHAPTER 20 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR ATTORNEYS Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities Scope 1.0 Terminology CLIENT-LAWYER RELATIONSHIP 1.1 Competence 1.2 Scope of representation and allocation of authority between lawyer and client 1.3 Diligence 1.4 Communication 1.5 Fees 1.6 Confidentiality 1.7 Conflicts of interest current clients 1.8 Conflict of interest: prohibited transactions 1.9 Duties to former clients 1.10 Imputed disqualification: general rule 1.11 Special conflicts of interest for former and current government officers and employees 1.12 Former judge, arbitrator, mediator or other 3rd-party neutral 1.13 Organization as client 1.14 Client with diminished capacity 1.15 Safekeeping property; trust accounts and fiduciary accounts (a) Definitions (b) Segregation of property (c) Types of trust accounts (d) Interest on Lawyer Trust Account (IOLTA) requirements (e) Prompt notice and delivery of property (f) Security requirements and restricted transactions (g) Record keeping requirements for trust accounts (h) Dishonored payment notification (Overdraft notices) (i) Trust account certificate and acknowledgements (j) Multi-jurisdictional practice (k) Fiduciary property (m) Exceptions to this section 1.16 Declining or terminating representation 1.17 Sale of law practice 1.18 Duties to prospective client 63 PREAMBLE: A LAWYER'S RESPONSIBILITIES [1] A lawyer, as a member of the legal profession, is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. [2] As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client's legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications.
    [Show full text]
  • (NCDA) Code of Ethics Serves Five Main Purposes: 1
    2015 NCDA Code of Ethics Contents NCDA Code of Ethics Preamble • 1 NCDA Code of Ethics Purpose • 2 Section A The Professional Relationship • 3 Section B Confidentiality, Privileged Communication, and Privacy • 6 Section C Professional Responsibility • 9 Section D Relationships with Other Professionals • 12 Section E Evaluation, Assessment, and Interpretation • 13 Section F Providing Career Services Online, Technology, and Social Media • 15 Section G Supervision, Training, and Teaching • 18 Section H Research and Publication • 22 Section I Resolving Ethical Issues • 24 Glossary of Terms • 26 References • 27 Index • 27 The NCDA Ethics Committee acknowledges the work of the American Counseling Association (ACA) and its Ethics Committee. NCDA, one of the founding associations of ACA in 1952, is a current division of ACA. As with its last revision, the NCDA Ethics Committee endeavored to follow the structure of ACA’s Ethics Code so that the two codes would be compatible with each other, while developing, adding, and enhancing profession-specific guidelines for NCDA’s membership. More information on ACA’s Ethics Code can be found on their website (see the attached web references section). Nondiscrimination Statement NCDA opposes discrimination against any individual based on age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, creed, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, marital/partnership status, language preference, socioeconomic status, or any other characteristics not specifically relevant to job
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division
    Case 4:15-cr-00028-TWP-VTW Document 570 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:15-cr-0028-TWP-VTW ) CARLOS SHELTON, ) - 01 TERRANCE BRASHER, ) - 07 BRANDY GUM, ) - 11 ) Defendants. ) ENTRY ON GOVERNMENT’S SANTIAGO PROFFER The Government has filed under seal, a Santiago proffer. (Filing No. 526). Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that statements by co-conspirator’s made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not hearsay excluded under Rule 802. When a statement of a co-conspirator which would otherwise have been regarded as hearsay is proffered, a preliminary question arises under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 104 requires a preliminary determination by the trial judge as to the admissibility of the declaration of a co-conspirator. Under Rule 104 the competence of a co-conspirator declaration justifying its admissibility depends upon whether or not the existence of the conspiracy has been sufficiently established by independent evidence, and whether under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) the declaration was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The trial judge retains the option of conditionally admitting the co-conspirator declaration evidence before the conspiracy has been independently established, but subject to the subsequent fulfillment of that critical condition. The standard to be applied during this competency determination is, “…if it is more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members of a conspiracy 1 Case 4:15-cr-00028-TWP-VTW Document 570 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> when the hearsay statement was made, and that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy, the hearsay is admissible.” Unites States v.
    [Show full text]