In the situation described and following the definition and common use cases of precedent, I would confirm that it is my opinion that the judge in question did in fact fail to follow precedent.
Precedent is described as a<em><u> </u></em><em><u>past event </u></em><em><u>and/or </u></em><em><u>action </u></em><em><u>which is used as a </u></em><em><u>guide </u></em><em><u>when </u></em><em><u>considering </u></em><em><u>the course of </u></em><em><u>action </u></em><em><u>for a </u></em><em><u>similar</u></em><em><u> </u></em><em><u>situation</u></em>. Given the keyword "similar" in this definition, it can be argued that in order for precedent to apply to a situation, it is <em><u>not necessary </u></em>for the details of each situation to be <u>identical</u>.
Therefore, the defense attorney can argue the failure to follow precedent <u>based solely on the similarly obscure nature of each law</u>. Furthermore, if the defense attorney is able to procure evidence of <u>past infractions of this law for which no charges were upheld</u>, it would almost certainly result in the appeal being granted and the subsequent review of the law in question.
To learn more visit:
brainly.com/question/885855?referrer=searchResults
I’m pretty sure it’s possession of drugs
Answer:
Homicides on acquaintances are more frequent among the late teens. ... or more offenders acting together tend to be more frequent among juveniles, especially for homicides occurring during the course of other crimes, particularly robbery.
Explanation:
so true
sorry if wrong
Answer:
The three state institutions that deal with human rights violations are - CESCR or Economic, Social and Culture Rights, Humans Rights Committee (CCPR), Committee on the 'Elimination of Discrimination against Women' (CEDAW) and CAT or Committee against torture