should i get a patent
On June 26, 2006, the United States Supreme Court, a decision on a case in which a man, Cuahetmoc Gonzalez-Lopez involved a lawyer, but then was subsequently not invited to a meeting with him. The lawyer is trying to on numerous occasions to communicate with its customers, but was by a lawyer provided by the Gonzalez family in the name of the court. The man was later convicted and appealed his decision on the grounds that the denial of his first election law a violation of his rights The sixth amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In his statement, the court found that this amounted to a violation of the Sixth Amendment and that the husband is entitled to advice of his choice.
This decision overturning the man's conviction. Justice Alito wrote in his dissenting opinion that he believes this decision to be an incorrect interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, and that it is within the court, only to admit attorneys that qualify under its procedural rules.
He also wrote that the burden on the defendant to show that he was adversely affected by the denial of his first electoral mandate, in contrast to the majority decision of the court.
This is the essential difference between the opinions. The majority believes that this decision is not generally his conviction, while the dissenting judge Alito, Kennedy and Thomas believe that it is not. He refers to the fact that the Constitution is not for the violation of the rules and the federal law.
Check Out More Articles:
Public Defender Office Simi Valley, California, Criminal Records From Public Defenders Office, IL Public Defender Office
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น