Facebook
Home Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Fraudulent Concealment of Evidence

Fraudulent Concealment of Evidence

There are many steps to a court case that need to be met and followed in order for the process to proceed legally. One of the earliest steps after a suit is filed is referred to as discovery. In discovery both parties, no matter what type of case, share all relevant information pertaining to the case at hand. This involves handing over documents, depending on what type of case this case be thousands of pages of documents. Both parties are obligated under the legal statues of the United States to share all pertinent information in the case; this is a key distinction that the courts make. 

If one side does not share all the evidence their side has they in turn as a lawyer commit legal malpractice. Fraudulent concealment of evidence is legal malpractice in itself, and it also shows negligence on the part of the attorney another form of legal malpractice. On top of that it is also criminal to conceal evidence as the courts deem it as a fraud. In basic it is one of the worst moves an attorney can do outside of blatantly misrepresenting their client’s interests.

Fraudulent concealment of evidence can occur though and never be document. One point that is made within the laws is that the plaintiffs need to point out to the court what the defendant has committed. Without the plaintiffs pointing out the concealed evidence then the courts would not be aware that legal malpractice occurred unless someone on the side of the defendant leaked the information. While court cases are divided into two parties against each other all lawyers have duty to respect the court of law. While they have to represent their client to the best of their ability concealing evidence is still a fraud against the court even if it may be in their client’s best interest.

It is legal malpractice and the lawyer if proven guilty in a legal malpractice case would be disbarred and probably receive some jail time. Lawyer need to balance their client’s best interests with the rules of the court at many times. That is why some of the best lawyers can take the most damaging evidence about their client, and pertinent to the case, share it through discovery but utterly minimize the damage. 

However, the exception, and a fine one, all rest in the word pertinent. A client can have some damaging material on him but if it is in no way related to the case then it does not need to be shared through discovery as evidence. This would then not constitute a form of legal malpractice.

Legal malpractice can manifest itself in many forms. One of the more serious forms of legal malpractice is the fraudulent concealment of evidence. During the process of discovery a lawyer intentionally withholds some form of evidence that would be considered to the case if it were to proceed in a fair manner. Serious penalties can be levied on a lawyer if he or she is found guilty of fraudulent concealment of evidence.

Burden of Proof Overview

Burden of Proof Overview

Medical malpractice is a serious issue in the United States, and an expense one to litigate as well. The plaintiffs must be completely sure that a form of medical malpractice has occurred. Even at that there are financial obstacles that also stand in the way. Many times if a malpractice case occurs within a hospital the plaintiff must be ready to outspend the hospital as an entity in the courtroom, at times the costs outweigh what can be garnished in a settlement and therefore plaintiffs walk away from the case. One of the biggest elements in a medical malpractice case is the plaintiffs’ ability to show a burden of proof.

Burden of proof laws vary from state to state; some states have more stringent burden of proof laws while other states allow for much more leeway. This variation also drives up the cost of medical expenses as a whole, due to the large settlements usually awarded in medical malpractice cases hospitals and doctors offset their financial liability by raising the costs of medical procedures. However, when a medical malpractice case does occur, in all states, there are a certain elements that need to be met under all burden of proof laws for the case to proceed to litigation. Negligence, breach of contract, breach of medical duty, omission of facts are all forms of medical malpractice that under burden of proof laws can be brought in front of the court. 

The most common of which is negligence. Negligence may manifest in a number of ways, so the paper trail in all cases is highly important. A doctor may make a mistake during surgery causing grievous bodily harm, if there was an outside cause to this mistake (say beyond the simple slip of a hand) then the doctor very well could find a medical malpractice lawsuit waiting for him. General neglect is another form of negligence and is the easiest to substantiate in a court of law. 

This is when a doctor can either delay treatment for no direct reason, misdiagnose a grave illness for a common disease, breaches their duty as a medical professional, and possibly cause injury if all the parts fall into place. With all these factors actually present many lawyers would consider this to be a ‘slam dunk’ case since negligence can be easily proven. However, if one of these factors are missing this is where the high cost of medical malpractice litigation arises as both sides will dig deep to show there was not any true negligence.

In any medical malpractice case the burden of proof falls directly on the plaintiff. It is up to the plaintiff to prove that his or her doctor is liable for the damages cause. In some cases this is the person while in other more grave cases this can be the family of the person. In states with stricter medical malpractice laws it can be difficult to prove doctor negligence if there is not paper trail in his documents or direct actions that can be deemed negligence.

Resa Ipsa Loquitor

Certain legal concepts, like that of medical malpractice law, require doctrine to argue the cases beyond just what is found in a legal textbook. Resa Ipsa loquitor is one such doctrine that outlines what should be present in all malpractice lawsuits. The four main tenets are fairly simple to understand and can be broken into two groups quite easily. The first group relates to proving that the doctor was negligent in their behavior which in turn caused the personal injury that is suffered by the plaintiff. 

The second group, the last two, moves to show that the plaintiff in no way contributed to the personal injury that he or she is suffering from. While there can be divergence from this doctrine in some cases, it is mostly present in all malpractice cases. If any part of the four tenets is missing it can be grounds to dismiss the case from a court of law. Usually only the most extreme cases move away from this doctor and attempt to prove negligence in other fashions, sometimes the case is so simple as well that he criteria listed above are naturally achieved from the start of the case.

Infliction of Mental Distress

Sometimes the law can lag behind the changing moral codes and scientific knowledge of the time. Law is inherently reactionary as it takes into account what happened. If law was applied proactively it can be taken to constrain the personal freedom of citizens which is prohibited by the United States constitution. One such area where law needs to adapt to the changing times may be in the field of mental distress, and furthermore the infliction of mental distress on another person.

Yet, the court until this point has had a hard time trying to define and measure mental distress. A person can claim severe mental distress but may even appear to be in a normal state to a psychiatrist, it is sometimes very hard to determine. Usually the courts today link mental distress to a physical event, in effect, showing a direct causality for the distress. In other cases the courts mandate that the mental distress had to be caused in a public forum, in a sense, loosely justifying a reason behind why a person is feeling a certain way.

Fraudulent Concealment of Evidence

There are some forms of malpractice that are not medical malpractice. Malpractice can also occur within the field of law; one of the most common infractions is the fraudulent concealment of evidence on behalf of an attorney. In these instances the attorney in question does not provide all pertinent information during discovery in a manner of speaking changing the fairness of the case. By withholding information the attorney can slant the case in his or her direction. While one of the most important duties for an attorney is to represent his or her client’s interests to the fullest lawyers also have a responsibility unto the court. 

As officers of the court certain standards need to be kept and followed. One standard is to provide all pertinent evidence in a court case during the discovery period. If this is not done it can lead to criminal charges and even disbarment. Legal malpractice can be just as damaging as medical malpractice as the attorney is question may find their career over and the people that the represent will need to incur costs of obtaining a new lawyer and problem costs in getting the money back from the lawyer guilty of fraudulent concealment of evidence.

Reasonable Suspicion Defined

Reasonable Suspicion Defined

In many instance, law enforcement professionals must use their best judgment to govern their actions and behavior. Reasonable suspicion is a standard of proof that regulates certain behavior in the field of law enforcement. Reasonable suspicion refers to the reasonable belief that an individual has been involved in a criminal offense, or is going to take part in such activities. If a law enforcement agent has reasonable suspicion regarding an individual, he/she is permitted to detain that individual for a short period of time.
During the time that the individual is detained, officials will likely try to obtain probable cause, which will allow them to arrest the individual and acquire search warrants. If a law enforcement agent has reason to believe that an individual is carrying a concealed weapon, the officer has the right to search for these weapons, based on reasonable suspicion.
Though reasonable suspicion is grounds for short term detainment, it does not warrant arrest. Therefore, unless law enforcement officials have probable cause, an individual cannot be arrested. Reasonable suspicion is also not grounds for initiating a criminal case. In order for a criminal case to be initiated, suitable evidence regarding an individual’s criminal behavior must be acquired. 
If law enforcements agents do not have suitable evidence, but detain an individual for an extended period of time, the officers are in violation of the individual’s rights. It is important to note that an officer is not permitted to search, or frisk, an individual for drug or similar contraband. An officer can only employ this behavior if he/she has reasonable suspicion that an individual is carrying a weapon.

Importance of Probable Cause

Importance of Probable Cause

In order for a law enforcement officer to arrest an individual, the officer must have probable cause that the individual committed a criminal offense. Probable cause is also essential for law enforcement agents to acquire search warrants. Under the United States Constitution, an individual cannot be subjected to unreasonable searches, and neither can his/her property. 
Therefore, all person or property searches conducted by law enforcement officials must be reasonable. To ensure that these procedures are reasonable, law enforcement officers must have and identify probable cause. Probable cause is considered to be one standard higher than reasonable suspicion. If an officer has reasonable suspicion, he/she can detain an individual for a short period of time. Probable cause allows for extended detainment.
The term probable cause is generally used to describe a high probability that an individual committed the offense in question. The circumstances surrounding the suspected individual and the case must strongly suggest that he/she has committed a criminal offense. Often, fundamental evidence will be required to hold an individual for an extended period of time.
There must be evidence that effectively links the suspected individual to the crime in question. If there is no evidence available, then officers will likely be required to release the individual, as they do not have probable cause to hold him/her. Probable cause is not grounds for a criminal conviction. Though probable cause can warrant an arrest, concrete evidence must prove an individual’s guilt, in order for him/her to be convicted of a crime.

Be Aware of Prejudgment Remedy

Be Aware of Prejudgment Remedy

A prejudgment remedy is a technique that may be used by creditors during financial lawsuits. In the event that a debtor fails to repay a creditor, a creditor may initiate a lawsuit to acquire the payment that he/she is entitled to, or to seize the property that the debtor has been provided. In most instances, a creditor will be prohibited from collecting from a debtor or contacting a debtor for collection purposed during such procedures. 
The most common example of this occurs in bankruptcy cases. If an individual files for bankruptcy, all of his/her creditors are prohibited from contacting him/her throughout the duration of the case. However, in some instances, an individual may attempt to transfer his/her property, so that this property cannot be seized to compensate the creditors. This can notably diminish the repayment that creditors receive, causing them to lose an extensive investment. 
If a creditor has reason to believe that a debtor may hide certain property prior to the court judgment, the creditor can petition for a prejudgment remedy. In the event that the court grants this remedy, the remedy will protect the assets until a judgment is made. The assets will be taken from the debtor and overseen by the creditor until the case is resolved.
 Due to the nature of a prejudgment remedy, these aggressive techniques are rarely approved by the court. If a creditor wished to acquire a remedy, he/she must meet rigid eligibility requirements and adhere to detailed procedures. In order to obtain a prejudgment remedy, a creditor is required to present suitable evidence, indicating the potential loss of pertinent assets.

Do I Get A Rebuttal

Do I Get A Rebuttal

The process of carrying out a criminal trial is intended to ensure that both parties involved in the trial have adequate opportunity to argue their case. Therefore, the prosecution has the opportunity to present evidence that helps to prove a defendant’s guilt. In addition, the prosecution will provide witness testimony supporting the accusations made against the defendant, and seek to convince the jury of the defendant’s guilt. 
The defense will then be permitted to rebuttal the claims made by prosecution and argue its case. Rebuttals are essentials components of any criminal trial. The defense must be given the opportunity to defend the accused individual, by addressing the evidence and testimony presented by the prosecution. The prosecution can also rebuttal, following claims made by the defense.
There are some fundamental regulations that govern rebuttals. When one party initiates a rebuttal to evidence or testimony provided by the opposition, the rebuttal must directly pertain to the evidence in question. The party that is rebutting is not permitted to introduce new evidence. The argument provided must address the evidence that was presented, and only that evidence.
However, in some instances, rebuttals can permit a party to introduce a new witness. For example, if one party presents testimony that was not declared prior to the trial, than the opposing party is often permitted to introduce a new witness, in order to create an effective rebuttal. However, this witness is only permitted to rebut the claims made by the opposing party, and cannot add additional information.

Being Guilty By Suspicion

Being Guilty By Suspicion

In many criminal cases, reasonable suspicion is present, and suggests that a defendant is likely guilty of the crime that he/she has been accused of committing. A defendant may have had the motive and the opportunity to commit the offense. The surrounding circumstances may make a defendant the likely perpetrator. However, in the United States, a defendant is considered to be innocent until he/she is proven guilty. Therefore, an individual is never guilty by suspicion.
Suspicion is never an adequate foundation of a conviction. The outcome of a criminal case can adversely alter an individual’s life, resulting in the destruction of his/her reputation and serious criminal sentences, including incarceration. Therefore, it is important that an individual not be falsely convicted of an offense. As a result, finding a defendant guilty by suspicion is prohibited.
In order to prevent a defendant from being found guilty by suspicion, the United States implements extensive criminal cases. An individual cannot be charged with a crime unless there is suitable evidence indicating his/her guilt. This evidence must convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant has committed the offense in question. 
The prosecution will have the opportunity to present pertinent evidence to the jury. Specified elements of the crime must be provided, including the defendant’s motive and intention. The defense will then be granted the opportunity to argue the claims and accusations of the prosecution. Witnesses will be asked to provide testimony regarding the actions of the defendant and the events that occurred. If all presented evidence proves that the defendant is guilty, only then can he/she be convicted of the crime.
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©