Texas Judiciary - Assignment Example

Texas Judiciary Assignment Facts The case involves an individual, Bradley Smith, and Del Lago partners. The plaintiff suffered injuries as a resultof the fight that broke out at a bar owned by the defendant. The plaintiff argues that the defendant did nothing to ensure his safety at the bar since he was not the party to the fight that broke at the bar. Mr. Smith had been invited to a party at the bar and sustained injuries after an altercation ensued at the bar. In his argument, the plaintiff argued that the bar breached its duty to care under the premise-liability claim.

He argued that the bar could have done more to ensure that the persons not involved in the fight were not injured. Decision Smith won the case on a 6-3 decision. The jury argued that the bar had ample time to prevent the altercation since they had experience on the behavior of intoxicated persons. As the witnesses posed, the confrontation lasted for more than 90 minutes. The bar did little to enhance security during this time. The duty to care for the invited guests lay in the hands of the bar management.

The fact that the threat was foreseeable was enough to prompt an action from the bar management (Cruise n.p). The dissenting opinions utilized various reasonable premises to deny the arguments of Smith. Justice Johnson argued that the situation at the bar was an obvious danger and that Smith could have left long before the altercation. In this regard, Smith chose to remain at the bar through the crisis that the bar owners should not be held responsible. The opinion was supported by the Justice Hecht who accused Smith of negligence.

I would support the ruling since the bar owners had a lot of time to prevent the violence, or even call the police officers. The confusion that ensures between the employees on calling the security apparatus proves that the bar did little and neglected the invitees.Assignment 2Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.Ronald WILSON, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas.No. PD-0307-09.Decided: March 3, 2010Facts The case involves the trickery and deceit that is used by the police officers in interrogating criminals.

The police detective, Roberts, went beyond the normal limit when interrogating a murder suspect, Mr. Wilson. The detective used falsified records to show that the appellant had been involved in the murder through a fingerprints report. According to the detective, the prints were found on the magazine of the murder weapon. In this way, the detective lured the appellant into the confession that he indeed shot the victim. Decision The trial judge refused to drop the evidence and denied the appellant request to recant the confession.

The appellant court found out that the detective was in violation of the Texas Penal Code section 37.09 that inhibit the officers from using fabricated reports to get confessions from suspects. In addition, the court found out that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence since it was inadmissible under clause 38.23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite the decision, several judges dissented on the opinion that detectives are faced with a hard task of balancing the societal concerns and the rights granted by the Constitution (Findlaw n.p). The fact that the appellant confessed the murder is enough to convict him otherwise the state would risk setting the guilty free due to the interrogation methods.

If I were a judge, I would concur with the dissenters since the fact that the appellant confessed to a murder could be a starting point to get the reliability of the evidence. Fingerprints are unique and thus the appellant could not have confessed if he was pretty sure that he had not used the murder weapon. In this regard, I would deny the motion to suppress.Works cited"WILSON v. STATE - FindLaw." Findlaw. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 July 2014.Cruse D. "Texas Supreme Court upholds liability against a bar that did not stop a brewing fight [orders of Apr. 2, 2010]." Supreme Court of Texas Blog. N.p., 2 Apr. 2010. Web. 5 July 2014.

Supreme Court of the State of Texas. "Opinions of the Supreme Court of Texas. The fiscal year 2010 (September 1, 2009–August31, 2010)." (2010): 109-175. Web. 5 July 2014.