Supreme Court Case Decision Permitting Lawyers To Withdraw Case

The trial and condemnation to death of Asia Bibi is certainly one of the most horrifying examples of death penalty. She is a Christian Pakistani woman, convicted and sentenced to death by a Pakistani Court in November 2010. The facts of the case have always been subject to fierce debate. Yet, inconsistencies in witness testimonies and fragmented evidence did not prevent the court from securing Bibi’s conviction and from passing the death sentence. In 2014, the Lahore High Court upheld her death sentence. Nonetheless, the execution was stayed in July 2015, when the Pakistani Supreme Court agreed to hear her appeal. It was listed to take place during October 2016. Unfortunately, the appeal had to be adjourned after one of the three judges due to hear the case, Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, recused himself quoting a conflict of interests. Two years later, on October 31, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down the judgement acquitting Asia Bibi.

The judgment indicated that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The decision of Pakistan’s highest court appears to matter little to the protesters. They have little respect for law and legal procedure. Obscurity surrounds the case. Despite the acquittal, it was announced that Bibi had not been released, and that in any event, she would not be allowed to leave Pakistan. Then it was announced that she had left for an unknown destination. Clearly, if released in Pakistan she would have been brutally murdered by frantic mobs. Her husband and lawyer, are also trying to find refuge abroad, as are two of the judges who agreed to her acquittal. Even before the acquittal, Shabez Bhutti, Minister of Minorities, and Salman Taseer, Governor of Punjab, who visited Asia Bibi in prison and argued her innocence were assassinated. The former was murdered by Taliban, the latter by his own bodyguard.

While details of the original offense are obscure, it relates to the alleged ritual impurity of a non-Muslim woman in an environment of fanatical religion. What was Asia Bibi accused of? The trial stems from an argument Asia Bibi had with a group of women in June 2009.They were harvesting fruit in the full heat of the sun when a row broke out about a cup of water. Prosecutors alleged that in the row which followed, the women said Asia Bibi should convert to Islam and that she made offensive comments about the Prophet Muhammad in response. She was later beaten up at her home, during which her accusers say she confessed to blasphemy. She was arrested after a police investigation. Whatever the details, the fault is trivial. What arose in the subsequent verbal brawl cannot be more serious than the alleged uncleanliness. There are photographs of demented crowds calling for the hanging of Bibi. This is certainly not the teaching of the Prophet whose action to save the life of a woman taken in adultery is as striking as an identical event in the life of the founder of another world religion. Such actions strike at the heart of humanity, beyond all laws, religions, legal systems and ethical standards. The book reveals her deep devotion to her husband and five children, all of whose lives are in danger.

A “no contact order” means that the defendant is precluded from having any contact and or communication with the victim or the person under the protection of the no contact order. A “no contact order” means that the defendant is precluded from having any contact and or communication with the victim or the person under the protection of the no contact order. This includes but is not limited to letters, emails, text messages or messages delivered through a third party. This article pertains to Rhode Island (RI) no contact orders. In other words if a person is under this type of restrianing order and sees the victim in public they must leave the area immediately and not acknowledge the victims existence. A person cannot even say “hi” if they walk by the victim by chance on the street. A person can be arrested for a violation even if the victim initiates the contact and calls the defendant.

A person can be charged with a violation even if invited by his wife to come back to the marital home. Even if the victim tells you that the no contact order has been dropped, do not take the victims word for it. You must see the piece of paper signed by the judge dismissing the order before any contact or communication is initiated. A no contact order expires when the sentence period is finished. It also expires if the case is dismissed or the defendant is found not guilty. However, be careful because there may also be another restraining order issued as a result of a divorce or Family Court matter or a District Court restraining order. A person who is on probation, bail or a probation attached to a suspended sentence must be even more vigilante in order to not violate the no contact order. A violation is a crime in itself which is also a violation of the conditions of probation, filing or bail. A person on probation, during a one year filing or bail can be held at the ACI if they are accused of violating a no-contact order. The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer/ attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice. Is a nolo contendere plea a criminal conviction in Rhode Island (RI)? Rhode Island Probation: a Period Of Extreme Risk! Rhode Island Divorce FAQS- answered by a Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer. Rhode Island Divorce: Equitable does not always mean equal! What constitutes marital Property? Rhode Island DUI/ DWI/ Breathalyzer Refusal- Should I refuse the breathalyzer test? Erase and Expunge Dismissed Criminal Records in Rhode Island (RI)! 8 arguments that usually dont work in Rhode Island Family Court! Rhode Island (RI) Law:What is Title Insurance and should I get title insurance? Where do I obtain a Rhode Island restraining order- Family, District or Superior Court?

Just a few weeks ago the Professional Responsibility Board of the Supreme Court of Ohio issued an advisory opinion on whether it is ethical to participate in certain internet programs that “match” prospective clients with available lawyers. The opinion does not mention any such services specifically by name but given the description of the services, it is clear (at least to me) that one of the programs at issue is Avvo Legal Services. The opinion concludes that the business model of these types of services present many ethical concerns and that because of at least some of them, participating in them might be unethical. A lawyer seeks guidance regarding whether a particular business model involving online lawyer referrals is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. The proposed business model is an online referral service that matches a prospective client with a lawyer for a particular legal service. Although the client chooses the lawyer, the company defines the types of legal services offered, the scope of the representation, the fees charged, and other parameters of the legal representation.

Additionally, the model requires a lawyer to pay a “marketing fee,” for each completed client matter. The “marketing fee” is based on the fee generated from the completed individual legal matter. Based on this description, the opinion concludes that the business model at issue constitutes a “referral service” regardless of how the company running it describes itself. I am not sure I agree with this conclusion. Thus, if the program at issue simply creates and provides a list of potential lawyers from which potential clients can choose who they want to hire, the argument that the program is a referral service is weaker. In Ohio, however, the key is not a ban on paying a fee, even if that fee is calculated as a percentage of the legal fee earned on the referred matter. The key is whether the referral service is registered with the Supreme Court of Ohio. If the service is not registered with the Court or if it does not follow all the requirements imposed by the Court’s regulations, participating in the service is unethical.

The jailhouse lawyer is a familiar figure in fiction, and like the unctuous salesman, or gruff small town sheriff, he is not merely a product of literary imagination. There are jailhouse lawyers of varying degrees of competence doing time and providing legal aid to their fellow inmates in prisons all across America. Even in later years as Rosenberg gained better access to law books, being a jailhouse lawyer was not easy. These self-styled legal eagles often have to contend with retaliation from prison officials. According to a 1989 study on prison discipline, solitary confinement is a common disciplinary tactic used against jailhouse lawyers. In fact, the largest number of prisoners by far confined to “control units” are jailhouse lawyers. Despite the many obstacles he faced, Rosenberg was able to help thousands of his fellow prisoners over approximately four decades as a practicing jailhouse lawyer, gaining release from prison or reduced sentences for many of them. In 1981, he actually argued a case in open court, before the honorable Judge Albert Rosenblatt. He was the only prison inmate ever allowed to do so. Of all the jailhouse lawyers, he was the greatest and the best known. He came of age in prison before there was widespread access to counsel for post-conviction proceedings. Rosenberg never succeeded in employing his legal knowledge and skills to win his own freedom. At one point, he even argued for an appeal of his case in front of the very judge who had originally sentenced him. When I send them away, they never come back. ] come back, he came back as a lawyer. However, for all his legal acumen and the grudging respect it won him in many quarters, Jerome Rosenberg was no saint. His arrest on the murder charges that he consistently denied was by no means his first brush with the law.

15. The concept of ‘State’ has changed in recent years. In all democratic dispensations the State has assumed the role of a regulator and provider of different kinds of services and benefits to the people like jobs, contracts, licences, plots of land, mineral rights and social security benefits. In his work “The Modern State” MacIver (1964 Paperback Edition) advocated that the State should be viewed mainly as a service corporation. “To some people State is essentially a class-structure, “an organization of one class dominating over the other classes”; others regard it as an organisation that transcends all classes and stands for the whole community. They regard it as a powersystem. Some view it entirely as a legal structure, either in the old Austinian sense which made it a relationship of governors and governed, or, in the language of modern jurisprudence, as a community “organised for action under legal rules”. Some regard it as no more than a mutual insurance society, others as the very texture of all our life.

16. When the Constitution was adopted, people of India resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic. 17. The role of the Government as provider of services and benefits to the people was noticed in R.D. 18. For achieving the goals of Justice and Equality set out in the Preamble, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities have to function through political entities and officers/officials at different levels. The laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures bestow upon them powers for effective implementation of the laws enacted for creation of an egalitarian society. The exercise of power by political entities and officers/officials for providing different kinds of services and benefits to the people always has an element of discretion, which is required to be used in larger public interest and for public good. In principle, no exception can be taken to the use of discretion by the political functionaries and officers of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities provided that this is done in a rational and judicious manner without any discrimination against anyone. In our constitutional structure, no functionary of the State or public authority has an absolute or unfettered discretion.

The very idea of unfettered discretion is totally incompatible with the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution and is an antithesis to the concept of rule of law. 19. In his work ‘Administrative Law’ (6th) Edition, Prof. H.W.R. 20. Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fishery and Food (1968) A.C. 997, is an important decision in the area of administrative law. “The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this: the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevantly. It its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. In this context it is important to emphasize that the absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole constitutional system is based.

In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits. The rule of law from this point of view means that decisions should be made by the application of known principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with the rule of law. 24. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (supra), Bhagwati, J. referred to an article by Prof. Reich “The New Property” which was published in 73 Yale Law Journal. Bhagwati, J. also noticed some of the observations made by Ray, C.J. Eursian Equipments and Chemicals Ltd. “……….This proposition would hold good in all cases of dealing by the Government with the public, where the interest sought to be protected is a privilege. “The Government today — in a welfare State — provides large number of benefits to the citizens.

It distributes wealth in the form of allotment of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies, mineral leases, contracts, quotas and licences etc. Government distributes largesses in various forms. A Minister who is the executive head of the department concerned distributes these benefits and largesses. He is elected by the people and is elevated to a position where he holds a trust on behalf of the people. He has to deal with the people’s property in a fair and just manner. “24………..While Article 14 permits a reasonable classification having a rational nexus to the objective sought to be achieved, it does not permit the power to pick and choose arbitrarily out of several persons falling in the same category. A transparent and objective criteria/procedure has to be evolved so that the choice among the members belonging to the same class or category is based on reason, fair play and non-arbitrariness. It is essential to lay down as a matter of policy as to how preferences would be assigned between two persons falling in the same category.

If there are two eminent sportsmen in distress and only one petrol pump is available, there should be clear, transparent and objective criteria/procedure to indicate who out of the two is to be preferred. Lack of transparency in the system promotes nepotism and arbitrariness. 28. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P. 29. Similarly, in L.I.C. 31. What needs to be emphasized is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. 32. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. 33. This, however, does not mean that the State can never allot land to the institutions/organisations engaged in educational, cultural, social or philanthropic activities or are rendering service to the Society except by way of auction.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation sent out an email yesterday analyzing the midterm elections for their impact on the firearms industry as well as on firearm regulations. They will also be having a pair of webinars next Tuesday afternoon which I hope to be able to watch. I’ll report on those afterwards. I think the NSSF is correct in that a lot of bills will be proposed and may even pass the House dealing with gun control. These will then die in the Senate. They refer to the Senate as the Red Wall. I think they are also correct that the pace at which new judges will be confirmed will pick up. The results are still trickling in on Wednesday, but we’re getting a clearer picture of what we can expect when it comes to the next two years for gun laws in the United States. Conventional wisdom says that the party in the White House loses “bigly” when it comes to the midterm elections, but last night’s results are proving different.