Whats the verdit in this case?

User Generated

Vafcverq826

Humanities

Argosy University Online

Description

Click here to review the case Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (2005).

The case describes an appellate legal opinion or court decision involving expert witness testimony. When a case is appealed, it goes to an appellate or to a higher court. The appellate court then reviews the findings of the lower court, which in this case was the trial court. The appellate court offered the following two opinions:

  • The first opinion (Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen, 2005, pp. 1–24) is the majority opinion and is the one that counts.
  • The second opinion (Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen, 2005, pp. 24–31) is an opinion filed by a minority of judges who concurred (agreed) in part and dissented (disagreed) in part with the majority of the judges who ruled.

After reading the appellate legal opinion, write a 2- to 3-page paper addressing the following:

  • Discuss whether either of the expert witnesses in this case acted unethically. Support your opinion with the relevant APA or specialty ethical guidelines.
  • Indicate whether you agree with the majority decision or the minority concurring or dissenting opinion. Explain why.

The paper should be in APA style.

Reference:

Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen, 609 S.E.2d 4 (Va. 2005).

Submission Details:

  • Save your paper as M4_A2_Lastname_Firstname.doc. By the due date assigned, post it to the Submissions Area.
Assignment 2 Grading Criteria

Maximum Points

Determined whether either of the expert witnesses in this case acted unethically.

40

Justified your response with appropriate ethical guidelines.

40

Critically evaluated the appellate legal opinion and logically explained your reasons for agreement with the majority or minority decision.

12

Wrote in a clear, concise, and organized manner; demonstrated ethical scholarship in accurate representation and attribution of sources; and displayed accurate spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

8

Total:

100

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Outline
Introduction
Body
Conclusion
Reference


Running head: THE VERDICT

1

The Verdict: Commonwealth Vs. Allen
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

THE VERDICT

2
The verdict

The two expert witnesses gave strong arguments from the analysis they made. They remained
ethical in practice. The APA moral principles section 4 talks of privacy and confidentiality.
Psychologists have a primary obligation to protect confidential information obtained or stored
through the medium. The law regulates the extent of confidentiality. Therefore, the
discussion of Allen’s sexual orientation and private information was justified by law as it
helped in the determination of whether the accused was fit to re-join the society or whether he
needed to be secluded from the rest of the population for their safety. In this case, the two
experts were permitted to discuss any information to the extent that is needed to determine
the case.
The question of the legitimacy of Doctor Foley was raised by Commonwealth disputing his
suitability to be allowed to represent a client in Virginia. He was licensed to operate in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey and the Commonwealth sought to discredit him on that
account. The APA principles ...


Anonymous
Really useful study material!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags