This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Western part of the United States. This court has appellate jurisdiction, therefore, the drug testing case was previously tried under original jurisdiction, in a lower court. This lower court could have been either a state or local court. The article also mentioned previous rulings from lower courts, or precedents. However, it seems these courts have rejected a precedent from a computer evidence case. This leads one to believe some judges were practicing judicial activism, or interpreting laws in a broad manner. Overall, this article was a good application of the judicial topics learned in class. Your Views I chose this article because I remember watching the news about a steroid scandal in baseball. I am indecisive about my position within this case since I do not know how or why the officials Mona Shen 4B Due September 20th, 2010 “illegally” seized the drug testing information. I believe that if the evidence was seized illegally, it should not be used in court....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 03/20/2012 for the course GEN 100 taught by Professor Smith during the Spring '12 term at Purdue University.
- Spring '12