manna :5 Emma 8 8w M85 3 an 5.3%. 05 58m 08:30: \"553.\" 0% EH meEom Pan50 05 335 mogdwmo EEO wD 2: mo \"SHED Em 2: 88m. $3 $69 an an waged E205 nowwuomi o mihwm Em @0326. mbnmmm awed 2% 35m , beau souwow Eu :6. 03.55 am 3:053 5:008 9338 33 369.80 can 03qu an\" ' ' :Bnam Page , m mungwad\". FEES .5533 55350: Jae team on \"Evaswum wmcu 850 m3 5. \"5;? go new E 3% 05 3:30 mammow 05 Em asco g moamuagoo 33% a EH goawncoaw EncomEm mtmmmm maa Sam Gama. m3. :0 dingmum mimeu Big awSuD Bums :8: a war. 10%.??? mm Emu-Humow 2w 8 35mm\" acunuomea Sings .5.wa 'mmw 52588; as: 3 ans: $3553 0333: .8 \"tan E 633 1.09%. 3 maa mm NEE gig .58\". .mmma mama mo 53:5 magi\": 05 Su @2228". wvam nanom vNNcm .N Running head: LAW ASSESSMENT 1 Law Assessment Name Institution LAW ASSESSMENT 2 Law Assessment 1. Rule 404 of article 4 of the Character Evidence and crime or other acts law prohibits the use of a person's character as evidence that shows that the individual acted based on that character to commit a crime or a felony. 2. The search query used was \"law that prohibits negative comments made in the courts of law by prosecutor\" 3. The legal issues involved in this case are that the defendant might sue for personal defamation because he was referred to as a devil which is not true. This case will be able to hold water because the defendant will say that, by the prosecutor referring to him as a devil he is hurting his chances of a free and fair trial in the courts of law which might get him sentenced for a long time in prison this is likely to affect his chances to win as his acts are compared to that of the devil and the devil is hated. The case above is a defamation case because the use of the word by the prosecutor to the defendant hurts his chances of gaining a fair trial, 4. In the case of \"Palma v. Atlantic County, 53 F. Supp. 2d 743 (D.N.J. 1999)\" 5. The defendant after being prosecuted and sentenced appealed to the courts of law under what was termed as malicious prosecution in which he was seeking compensation from the prosecutor. The case was decided in favor of the prosecutors who by law have immunity against any claim made during court proceedings. For this reason, this case is likely to work against my client and therefore picking it up will likely lead to a loss of the case. Case Two 1. This case will be determined based on the law \"10 U.S. Code 921 - Art. 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation\". This law is clear that any individual that takes another person's property or a possession belonging to someone else, without the permission of LAW ASSESSMENT 3 the owner for wrongful appropriation as well as to permanently defraud the owner of the property off the property 2. Search query \"US law on larceny\" 3. The legal issues in the case include: whether the property belongs to the new tenants or the old tenant? And whether Clair has enough reason to leave with the VCR and the tapes without the permission of the roommates. 4. To support Clair's conviction, theft is the action of taking someone's property according to the law. In this case, Clair can argue that the property does not belong to the tenant claiming it, but it rather belongs to the person who originally left it and who has not claimed it and therefore the accuser has no interest in the said property. The accusation against Clair will be that Clair has unlawfully possessed a property that is not hers for permanent ownership which therefore means that he has stolen the property which is wrong. 5. The case that could be used for Clair is the \"Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009)\" in which the defendant was adjudged not to have stolen the property in question because he was not aware of the owner which is similar in this case, in which the owner left and it's not clear who the property belongs to. The case against Clair will be \"Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952)\" which states that a person who is aware of the ownership of a good and takes advantage of that for their own personal benefit should be judged to have stolen the property. In this case Clair knew who the property belonged to but took it either way. LAW ASSESSMENT 4 Running head: LAW ASSESSMENT 1 Law Assessment Name Institution LAW ASSESSMENT 2 Law Assessment 1. Rule 404 of article 4 of the Character Evidence and crime or other acts law prohibits the use of a person's character as evidence that shows that the individual acted based on that character to commit a crime or a felony. 2. The search query used was \"law that prohibits negative comments made in the courts of law by prosecutor\" 3. The legal issues involved in this case are that the defendant might sue for personal defamation because he was referred to as a devil which is not true. This case will be able to hold water because the defendant will say that, by the prosecutor referring to him as a devil he is hurting his chances of a free and fair trial in the courts of law which might get him sentenced for a long time in prison this is likely to affect his chances to win as his acts are compared to that of the devil and the devil is hated. The case above is a defamation case because the use of the word by the prosecutor to the defendant hurts his chances of gaining a fair trial, 4. In the case of \"Palma v. Atlantic County, 53 F. Supp. 2d 743 (D.N.J. 1999)\" 5. The defendant after being prosecuted and sentenced appealed to the courts of law under what was termed as malicious prosecution in which he was seeking compensation from the prosecutor. The case was decided in favor of the prosecutors who by law have immunity against any claim made during court proceedings. For this reason, this case is likely to work against my client and therefore picking it up will likely lead to a loss of the case. Case Two 1. This case will be determined based on the law \"10 U.S. Code 921 - Art. 121. Larceny and wrongful appropriation\". This law is clear that any individual that takes another person's property or a possession belonging to someone else, without the permission of LAW ASSESSMENT 3 the owner for wrongful appropriation as well as to permanently defraud the owner of the property off the property 2. Search query \"US law on larceny\" 3. The legal issues in the case include: whether the property belongs to the new tenants or the old tenant? And whether Clair has enough reason to leave with the VCR and the tapes without the permission of the roommates. 4. To support Clair's conviction, theft is the action of taking someone's property according to the law. In this case, Clair can argue that the property does not belong to the tenant claiming it, but it rather belongs to the person who originally left it and who has not claimed it and therefore the accuser has no interest in the said property. The accusation against Clair will be that Clair has unlawfully possessed a property that is not hers for permanent ownership which therefore means that he has stolen the property which is wrong. 5. The case that could be used for Clair is the \"Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009)\" in which the defendant was adjudged not to have stolen the property in question because he was not aware of the owner which is similar in this case, in which the owner left and it's not clear who the property belongs to. The case against Clair will be \"Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952)\" which states that a person who is aware of the ownership of a good and takes advantage of that for their own personal benefit should be judged to have stolen the property. In this case Clair knew who the property belonged to but took it either way. LAW ASSESSMENT 4