Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 9 |Likes:
Published by Corina Alina

More info:

Published by: Corina Alina on Sep 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





CHAPTER 4CASE STUDY – LATIN EXPRESSIONS FREQUENTLY USED INCOURTROOMS AND LEGAL DOCUMENTSA number of Latin terms are used in legal terminology and legal maxims. This is a shortlist of these
legal Latin
terms, which are wholly or substantially drawn from Latin.
Is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as
 friend of the court 
, that refers tosomeone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it. Theinformation may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, a testimony that has not beensolicited by any of the parties.Here are some rules of the Supreme Court of United States defining most importantaspects of the use of the
amicus curiae
in court.
 An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to theCourt. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court,and its filing is not favored.
Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
 A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court,except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by theUnited States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth. The brief may be conditionally filed with the motion for leave. Amotion for leave shall identify the interest of the applicant and shall state thereasons why a brief of an amicus curiae is desirable. Save as all parties otherwiseconsent, any amicus curiae shall file its brief within the time allowed the party
whose position as to affirmance or reversal the amicus brief will support unless thecourt for cause shown shall grant leave for a later filing, in which event it shall  specify within what period an opposing party may answer. A motion of an amicuscuriae to participate in the oral argument will be granted only for extraordinaryreasons.
Rule 29. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP)In prominent cases,
amici curiae
are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets. Non-profit legal advocacy organizations such as the American Civil LibertiesUnion, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or  NORML frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal changeor interpretation.Barefoot v. Estelle (1983) is a Texas death penalty case in which the U.S. SupremeCourt ruled on the admissibility of clinical opinions given by two psychiatrists hired by the prosecution in answer to hypothetical questions regarding the defendant's futuredangerousness and the likelihood that he would present a continuing threat to society. TheAmerican Psychiatric Association submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in support of thedefendant's position that such testimony should be inadmissible and urging curtailment of  psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness and a prohibition of such testimony based on hypothetical data.Petitioner Thomas A. Barefoot stands convicted by a Texas state court of theAugust 7, 1978 murder of a police.First, petitioner was diagnosed as a severe criminal sociopath. The diagnostic wasconfirmed as
a label variously defined as describing persons who lack a conscience and who do things which serve their own purposes without regard for any consequences or outcomes to other people,
 by the tow psychiatrists participating in the trail as amicuscuriae
Holbrook and dr. Grigson. Second, both psychiatrists
testified that petitioner would commit criminal acts of violence in the future. Dr. Holbrook stated that he could predict petitioner's future behavior in this regard "within reasonable psychiatric certainty."Dr. Grigson was more confident, claiming predictive accuracy of "one hundred percent andabsolute."28
Is a legal term in Roman, English, and American law referring to a type of writ seeking judicial review. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of Latin certiorare, (to show, prove or ascertain). A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directinga lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review.Certiorari is an action taken after sentencing by a defendant who seeks relief for some perceived error in his criminal trial. There are a number of such post-trial actions, their differences being potentially confusing, thus bearing some explanation.District of Columbia v. Heller is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It is the first SupremeCourt case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals in addition to a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.In February 2003, the six residents of Washington, D.C. filed a lawsuit in the DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia, challenging the constitutionality of provisions of theFirearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, a local law. This law restricted residents fromowning handguns, excluding those grandfathered in by registration prior to 1975 and those possessed by active and retired law enforcement officers. The law also required that allfirearms be kept
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock 
. The District Courtdismissed the lawsuit.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the dismissal in a 2-1 decision. The Court of Appeals struck down provisions of the Firearms ControlRegulations Act as unconstitutional. The court also struck down the portion of the law thatrequires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept unloaded and disassembled or  bound by a trigger lock.In April 2007, the District and Mayor Adrian Fenty petitioned for a
writ of certiorari
,arguing that the ruling creates inter- and intra-jurisdictional conflict. On May 8, the Courtof Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the request to rehear the case, by a 6-4 vote.The defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case. The plaintiffs did not oppose but, in fact, welcomed the petition. The Supreme Court agreed to29

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->