Introduction: Cases Overview
The observed and evaluated cases are equally problematic from the due process of law. While the State of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann estimates the power of the Sixth Amendment, the Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin explores the conversion attribution to the property that equally belongs to the parties. The research of the cases shows the necessity of the flexible approach for the sake of the efficient cases judgement and analysis. Though the decision on the cases is stated in the numerous law sources, the closer analysis of the court rationale is required.
State of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann,
The first case, the State of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann, provides a domestic violence and the attempted rape. According to the case material, the attentive neighbor called the police after hearing the cries in the Timmermann house. The officer McLelland attended the house and examined bruises on Mrs. Timmermann’s face and arms. According to Mrs. Timmermann’s testimony, her husband repeatedly hit her and tried to force her to the sexual intercourse. The nurse’s analysis proved Mrs. Timmermann’s words that created a pretext for the lawsuit. However, Mr. Timmermann tried to take an advantage of the Sixth Amendment that implied the right not to testify against a wife/husband at the trial (Schubert, 2000, p. 174).
The cases are similar from the judgement viewpoint as their interpretation could alter the final decision on them.
The Analysis of the Solutions
The decision of the State of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann was just owing to the exclusiveness of the testimony. Mrs. Timmermann cried for help that resulted in the police call. She had apparent signs of fight and battery on her body. In addition, her testimony was “well-organized and recorded” according to the State of Utah’s court decision (Schubert, 2000, p. 174). This fact made her account fully valid for being used in court and be provided as the primary evidence against her husband.
Mr. Timmermann, in his turn, evidently planned to escape the justice. He observed Mrs. Timmermann’s refusal from the trial testimony as an advantage and appealed for the bindover quash. Similarly to the second case, he attacked the evidence and questioned its validity and truthfulness. However, his misinterpretation of the spousal testimony charges resulted in being guilty as charged. Mr. Timmermann intended to show his wife’s testimony being insufficient for the trial. To some extent, he appealed to the existing rule in the Sixth Amendment that prevented husband and wife from the testimony against each other. Mrs. Timmermann’s evidence, however, is still functional as she provided them in the due form, in the presence of the police force and the medical examiner (Schubert, 2000, p. 174). Accordingly, her testimony is sufficient for the trial without the necessity of repeating it before the court. As a result, the act of providing the evidence cannot be influenced by the final court’s decision or the negation of charges.
Accordingly, the court decided justly to overrule the quash owing to the inability of the spousal testimonial provilage application. As ruled in 502 (a) Utah Code section 78B-1-137, Mrs. Timmermann’s testimony was sufficient for pressing charges, and she was already free from testifying in court. It is qualified under the 8 U.S. Code § 1641 – Definitions (battery) (Legal Information Institute).
Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin,
The second case, Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin, consisted of the fraud and conversion. Mr. Henson agreed to sell his share/or the machine to Mr. Reddin. The machine was non-functional that resulted in Mr. Reddin’s purchase of the needful tools for its repair. Mr. Reddin purchased the property at a price of $4,561.52. Accordingly, Mr. Reddin was a full property owner as he owns the machine. Mr. Henson removed the trailer and thus, damaged the property. Mr. Reddin filed a lawsuit to return the property on the pretext of the ownership rights. The act of the property concealment apparently was classified as conversion (Schubert, 2000, p. 410).
- FREE revision (within 2 days)
- FREE title page
- FREE bibliography
- FREE outline (on request)
- FREE e-mail delivery
- FREE formatting
- Quality research and writing
- 24/7/365 Live support
- MA, BA, and PhD degree writers
- 100% Confidentiality
- No hidden charges
- No AI-written content
- Complete Authenticity
- 12 pt. Times New Roman
- Double-spaced/Single-spaced papers
- 1 inch margins
- Any citation style
- Up-to-date sources only
- Fully referenced papers
The Analysis of the Solution
In the case of Wesley Henson v. Allen Reddin, the court faced several obstacles. First, the court was to decide on Mr. Reddin’s contribution to the machine’s repairing; second, to estimate the damage caused to Mr. Reddin by Mr. Henson’s conversion; third, to qualify the actions of Mr. Henson as either a fraud or a conversion. The court’s decision not only defines the responsibility of Mr. Henson but also negates his unlawful actions of keeping the property from the full rights owner.
The court justfly decided for three reasons. First, the plaintiff provided a proof of the machine’s purchase that enabled him performing a control over it and usage in personal interest. Second, the plaintiff repaired the machine at his own cost estimated $857.94 additional charges. Third, the defendant disabled the plaintiff from the ability to use the machine for the personal purposes that qualify his actions under the 11 U.S. Code § 706 – Conversion (Legal Information Institute).
The court took into consideration every detail of the examination and justly overruled Mr. Henson’s issues. This affirmed the judgement on the triple obligation to Mr. Reddin. Therefore, the defendant ought to return the property to Mr. Reddin’s possessions. Moreover, Mr. Henson is to pay the damages for the property harm to Mr. Reddin. Furthremore, Mr. Henson is obliged to pay 5% interest rate to Mr. Reddin from December 16, 2010 (the purchase day) until paid in full.
The primary difficulty of the case, unlike the State of Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann, was qualifying Mr. Henson’s actions and evaluating the damage. However, the court did not question any of the outlined points. In addition, the court did not qualify Mr. Henson’s actions as the fraud that prevented Mr. Henson from the additional charges beyond the repair and the interest rate expenditures.
The above discussed cases are multi-layered and uneasy to solve. On the one hand, they contain the intentions of the defendant to turn the evidence in their favor. On the other hand, they reveal the inability of cheating the justice system.
Thus, Mr. Timmermann appealed to the spousal testimony privilege to annul the wife’s charges of battery and attempted rape. At the same time, the documented accusations were still used in court without the necessity of the spousal testimony. The court qualified the testimony as a due process and charged Mr. Timmermann despite Mrs. Timmermann’s court silence. Moreover, it insisted on the voluntary evidence’s provision by Mrs. Timmermann that does not violate either the Sixth Amendment or the spousal testimony privilege of the defendant.
You can ask us “write my case brief” on this or any other topic at Essay-Online-Shop.com. Don’t waste your time, order now!
Similarly, Mr. Henson intended to preserve the property lawfully purchased by Mr. Reddin. He used the details of Mr. Reddin and decided to maintain the machine without the prior notification or dispute with Mr. Reddin that resulted in the lawsuit. The court naturally abandoned the allegations as the Mr. Henson converted the property that was no more in his possession and obliged to pay him the interest rate for Mr. Reddin’s lost profits as a result of the machine out of order state.
To conclude, the cases are highly informative and illustrating for the US legislature decision-making. The priority of law and the Constitution compliance are the best potential methods of the efficient case accomplishment.