instructions In The attached file
For questions 1-3
has at least Two Sources to Support Your Ideas. least three to four paragraphs and answer the following:
The general consensus of criminologists and other researchers is that people with mental illness are more likely to commit crimes than those without mental illness. There is less agreement, however, about the extent to which mental illness impacts crime, with some researchers contending that its impact is minimal while others find that it is substantial. Your job in this discussion is to
1) research mental illness and discuss your findings with regard to the link between mental illness and crime,
2) discuss the prevalence of mental health diversion courts and whether you believe that they are underfunded or overfunded, and
3) discuss why mental health courts are (or are not) necessary in our society. In this discussion, you might consider the implications of mental health courts on recidivism, deterrence, costs, etc.
Counter/support this brief below
My GROUP CASE BRIEFING ON THE CASE OF: BRINDA COATES, ETC v.s. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY
Summary of Facts:
Respondent R.J. Reynolds was indicted on questions of the number of punitive damages in a tobacco production liability case. The petitioner was Ms. Brinda Coates a middle-aged female. The defendant R.J. Reynolds was appointed an attorney with limited experience. The Tobacco being used was harming children under the legal age to be smoking, by killing them, harming their lungs, and even lead to cancers received by the children discussed. Brinda wanted more damage or charges to be done to this company for everything they had put these underage kids through. The Supreme Court of Florida was involved and was filing acknowledgment letters as they underwent and investigated this case.
The motion to leave to file brief as amicus curiae were filed by the Washington Legal Foundation and granted that they are allowed to file brief only in support of respondent.
Procedure:
The Defendant within this case was convicted of needing more charges added for the harm being done at hand, to which he appealed. The court accepted the jurisdiction of the case and certified questions of great importance to the public. They wanted the petitioner's initial brief on the merits and must've been served before a specific amount of time. The lawyers for each party began to certify and submit all documents to the case docket.
Issue:
Should the Motion of Washington Legal Foundation be able to grant and allow to file a brief only in the support of the respondent?
Rule (or Holding):
The petitioner wanted the respondent to be sued and be charged and indicted on more convictions than only two. So, this continued the case for three months just on this one aspect.
Application (or Reasoning of the court):
The reasoning of the court was to try Reynolds based on the burden of proof submitted by the petitioner, Brinda Coates. The court had every reason to believe Brinda because of her evidence and long legal team names beside her. The Washington Legal Foundation came into play and assisted the defendant on Ms. Coates's late responses to the courts as well as a previous appeal submitted by the defendant.
Conclusion:
The Court found that the counsel representing the defendant Renoylds was able to be represented by the Washington Legal Foundation and was granted and allowed to file a brief only in support of the respondent. The brief was served to pursuant the Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure.
