Author: Anonymous

This term refers to the Military leader, not emperor of Japan

This Chinese dynasty’s most important invention was widespread use of money—coins—which lead to credit

These Japanese people were landless laborers who came to be because they could not pay taxes

Expansion of Silk Road will cause new religions to move into China

1+1+1=

This group of Japanese society owe no allegiance to the Shogun even though they are nobility

90 Degrees, a national distributor of windows, selected General Home Store to sell its windows in Colorado. The parties negotiated a written distribution agreement, which stated that any order for windows placed by General Home Store would be binding on 90 Degrees “only when expressly accepted by 90 Degrees.” For the next two years, General Home Store forwarded orders to 90 Degrees, and 90 Degrees always filled the orders. In the third year, 90 Degrees accused General Home Store of overcharging customers to install 90 Degrees’s windows. General Home Store responded that 90 Degrees had no control over General Home Store’s installation prices. When 90 Degrees received General Home Store’s next order for windows, it refused to fill the order.If General Home Store sues 90 Degrees for breach of contract, will it be likely to prevail?

Adam and Bill entered a preschool with guns intending to kidnap children on behalf of human traffickers who were willing to pay a substantial sum for children meeting a particular physical description. Upon entry they identified two such children and, to facilitate the abduction, they bound and gagged the preschool workers at gun point. Each then grabbed a child, placed them in their nearby van where their getaway driver was waiting with the engine running. They entered the van which then fled. An alert mother, on her way to pick up her child, observed the abduction, called police and provided a detailed description of the van and kidnappers. Police quickly located the van, arrested Adam and Bill, and returned the two children safely to their parents. The getaway driver … got away. After transporting Adam and Bill to the police station for questioning, police separated Adam and Bill and placed them in different interview rooms. Adam was read his Miranda rights verbatim from a note card. Adam then said, “I’m not talking to you guys.” No further questions were asked. Adam was then placed in a holding cell with an undercover officer who pretended to be an arrestee. The undercover officer engaged Adam in conversation and asked Adam why he was arrested. Adam responded that he was arrested for kidnapping. The undercover officer said, “I hope you didn’t talk to the cops.” Adam said, “Nope, I’m not going to give them any more than they already have.” The undercover officer asked what they already had. Adam said, “Pretty much everything but the guns – we stashed them; they won’t find them.” Meanwhile, a detective recited Miranda warnings to Bill, but from memory. He did not cite it exactly. Instead of saying, “You have the right to an attorney before and during any questioning” the detective inadvertently said, “You have the right to talk to a lawyer anytime before answering any questions and you can invoke that right at any time.” Def responded, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” The detective asked, do you want a lawyer? If so, this conversation must end.” Defendant then said, “No, I don’t want a lawyer.” Bill then gave a (nearly) full confession but declined to admit they were armed with guns. Bill was then placed in a holding cell with an inmate who was an agent of police (unbeknownst to Bill). Bill told the inmate all about the crime, except the guns and where they were hidden. The inmate warned Bill that kidnapping children is frowned upon by the other inmates and when they find out, Bill’s life would be in jeopardy. The inmate then told Bill that he pretty much ran the jail from the inside and could protect Bill from the other inmates, but that Bill had to be complete honest with him. He then said, “I don’t think you’re being honest about whether you used guns – you and your partner committed a very dangerous crime without guns. Why would the preschool adults just hand over kids? If you want my protection, you gotta come clean – show me that you trust me.” Bill then admitted they used guns and told the inmate where the guns were hidden. Approximately 2 years later, the getaway driver feeling remorse for his role in the crime, approached a random uniformed police officer on the street and confessed, in detail, to his role in the crime. The officer then handcuffed and arrested the getaway driver. Each of the above statements were made prior to the filings of charges, arraignments, or any appearances before a magistrate.   Directions: Pursuant to 5th Amendment Jurisprudence, discuss the likely admissibility of the statements made by Adam, Bill and the Getaway Driver.

Adam and Bill are charged with kidnapping and appear before a magistrate to answer for the charges. Adam’s family has retained private counsel for Adam. Bill on the other hand has no family or funds to retain private counsel. The magistrate is new to the position and expresses reluctance to appoint counsel for Bill based on both the heinousness of the charges and limited taxpayer resources.  Bill insists that he is “broke” and demands the court appoints counsel. The court asks Bill if he is aware of any authority requiring that he receive free appointed counsel. Bill shrugs and insists he heard it somewhere. The magistrate declines to appoint Bill counsel and asserts that they will revisit the issue at the next hearing in 30 days.  At the next hearing the magistrate appoints the public defender to represent Bill. The case progresses slowly and neither Adam nor bill are satisfied with how their Attorneys are handling their cases. At the next court hearing on the case, Adam tells the court he no longer wants his current attorney and request to retain new and “better” counsel, to wit: his (Adam’s) cousin who recently passed the bar. The court denies his request, asserting that Adam’s current counsel is more experienced and is already well familiar with the case. Moreover, the trial date is fast approaching. Bill also addresses the court asserting that he wants to represent himself since his public defender, while nice enough, is just too busy. The court questions Bill regarding his knowledge of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence. The court feeling that while Bill is of sound mind, he does not possess sufficient legal knowledge to represent himself adequately and may therefore do himself harm. The court denies Bill’s request to represent himself.  Adam and Bill, who have not posted bail, are then returned to their jail cells. Upon Adam’s return, deputies move Adam from his old jail cell and cell mate, and into a new jail cell with a new jail cell mate. Unbeknownst to Adam, his new cell mate has been cooperating with the jail deputies and is wearing a recording device. The cooperating cell mate was instructed to not ask Adam questions about his case, but merely to listen to Adam. Adam in his frustration with the court, begins venting about the court process. The cooperating cellmate, too eager to earn leniency in his own case, commences asking Adam questions about his case and whether he expects to prevail. Adam then answers the cell mate’s questions and makes incriminating statements about his case. Adam and Bill’s cases proceed to trial. Adam’s statements to the cooperating cell mate were admitted into evidence. Adam’s attorney never objected to their admission.  Bill’s public defender saw there was not much she could do considering the overwhelming evidence against Bill. Therefore, over Bill’s objection, she declined to pursue avenues of investigation that she felt were futile and instead attempted to convince the jury that Bill was acting under the duress and undue influence of Adam who was the mastermind of the crimes. Both Adam and Bill were convicted of all charges. Adam and Bill filed timely appeals. Adam asserts that the court erred (1) allowing his statements to the cooperating cell mate to be used against him; (2) in refusing to his request to retain his cousin; and (3) asserts ineffective assistance of counsel Bill asserts that the court erred in (1) refusing to appoint counsel at his initial appearance of the charges; (2) in denying his request to represent himself; and (3) asserts ineffective assistance of counsel.   Directions: Pursuant to 6th Amendment Jurisprudence discussed the appellate issues asserted by both Adam and Bill, and the likely rulings by the Court of Appeals.

Look closely at the following graph.  It was included as an illustration / supporting evidence in the research article titled “New Census Data Show More Americans Are Tying the Knot, but Mostly It’s the College-Educated.”   Your task: Critique this visualization, i.e., list as many problems/issues/concerns as you can detect.  Indicate how you would address these problems with a redesign.