MIDTERM EXAM 6 PAGES
Select 1 Question from the end of each Chapter and answer it.
CHAPTERS 1,2,3,4,5, and 6
1 page each question, APA format
Remember to cite the textbook, go in depth. The more you put into it the better you will do.
Review the sample exam to gain an A. Follow the length, and structured, apply APA format and go in depth. It is not too rough but points are deducted for failing to following the samples.
SAMPLE RESPONSE 1
In Chapter 7, I would like to go over the 2nd question on page 377. Abrams asks us if were to represent Reid, would we have been willing to sign the requested affirmation as talked about in the case. Personally I would not have signed the affirmation either. Under the Special Administration Measures, (SAMs) ass it applies to this case would have made it possible for the Co-council or the other lawyers and attorneys to speak with Reid without Reid’s attorneys being present. Why would you as Reid’s defense allow this to happen willingly?
This break in communication due to the SAMs between client and Attorney goes against the 6thAmendments right to council in a criminal case. So I believe they made the right choice by not signing and I would have done the same. To not allow Reid to consult with his attorneys truly is a violation on the proper way we perform defense for council. The attorneys are subordinate to the laws of the court in every aspect and must abide by them. They cannot begin to utilize procedure twisting it to compliment their agenda.
In chapter 8, Abrams asks the reader what the implications were to Judge Robertson’s conclusion on the issue of defendant’s access to classified information as affirmed in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Basically Judge Robertson concluded that excluding the defendant from a hearing room when classified information or evidence that is being presented is a major flaw for the military commission because the defendant would not be informed of that information properly. The mere fact that Detailed Defense Council who did have security clearances that were eligible to be present and hear the information would not be enough to protect the defendant’s rights. Ultimately the government has a choice to make. If the Preceding military judge determines that alternatives may not be used and the government objects to disclosure of information, then by that time the conflict created by the need of the government to protect classified information and the defendant’s right to be present has no resolve. The only options left are to strike the testimony of a witness or declare a mistrial. If the evidence has no revalance or meaning to the defense then the charges must be dismissed. I honestly believe that this is a fair and honest approach to such a dilemma.
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl),S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood.Journal of Moral Education,36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning?Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology,27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.