Question

What is the main idea in this ruling? How could it impact United States v. Fields?

Answer 1

This case involves a federal death sentence imposed on defendant-appellant Fields for conviction of a federal capital offense. Fields was sentenced to death largely on the basis of the opinion of a psychiatrist who stated that he could confidently predict Fields would be dangerous in the future. The psychiatrist testified that he did not know of any "standard psychiatric or medical procedures used in arriving at a determination or predicting future dangerousness" and that he was unaware of specific empirical data or studies. He issued his opinion without engaging in any testing or any other objective measures or use of an actuarial method. His basis for this opinion was discussions with the prosecutors and review of some records regarding the defendant. The defense attorney objected to the testimony as unreliable under the standards for expert testimony established by the U.S. 


I hope my answer has come to your help. Thank you for posting your question here in Brainly. We hope to answer more of your questions and inquiries soon. Have a nice day ahead!

Answer 2

In this case, the Court ruled that states must prove that a person had malice when he or she created a false statement. Malice is an intentional decision to cause harm. This case relates to my case because it explains that speech can be restricted for content reasons if malice can be proven.

ANSWER ON: E D G E N U I T Y