This essay focuses on role of the Supreme Court. On the discussion to believe that individuals such as the defendant’s spouse, priest, doctor, or Lawver should or should not be compelled to testify against the defendant

role of the Supreme Court

1.    Discussion Question.

Discussion Question 6

Step1. Look at the discussion questions list on pages 295 in Chapter 11of your text.

Select ONE of the questions, restate it and provide your answer in 2 Paragraphs each one 75 words the total 150 words.

Example:  Q:

Why is Marbury v. Madison such an important decision?

A:  Marbury v. Madison establish the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court to….

This is significant in defining the role of the Supreme Court to….

Discussion question:

page 295 in Chapter 11.

Your answer should be from the CH-11.

To answer. Choose only ONE QUESTION from the following:

Firstly,  Do you believe that individuals such as the defendant’s spouse, priest, doctor, or Lawver should or should not be compel to testify against the defendant?

Secondly, What are the arguments in favor of designating these “privilege communications”?

Thirdly, What are the arguments in favor of forcing these individuals to testify?

In addition,  Take into consideration the cases cite in the discussion of playing the race card”

and pay close attention to the years in which the cases occur.

Moreover, Are you surprise that such discrimination emerges in contemporary courtrooms?

Further, How do you feel about attorneys “playing the race card” during trial?

Lastly, What could judges do to prevent it?

Furthermore,  What are the consequences of jury instructions being given in technical legal terms to jurors?

Additionally, What are the pros and cons to making the jury instruction process more comprehensible to laypeople?

Moreover, Should jurors be allow to base a decision to sentence an offender to death rather than to life in prison on predictions of future dangerousness?

In addition, Why or why not?

Firstly, What problems could arise from requiring all juries to return a unanimous verdict in order to convict an individual of a crime?

Allowing nonunanimous verdicts?

Secondly,  Should juries be notified by the judge that they are allow to nullify the law?

Thirdly, Are there situations when jury nullification can be justify?

Finally, Where it produces injustice rather than justice?