Question

HELP MEEEEE

Answer 1

Answer:

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. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical (i.e., that proffered evidence must be grounded in scientific reasoning or methodology). The district court overruled the objections and allowed the expert testimony to go to the jury.

Explanation:

Answer 2

Answer:

This is the Supreme Court opinion on the case of United States v. Fields. Abel Fields, a resident of California, is being tried for violating the Stolen Valor Act which was signed into law in 2006. In 2011, Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety.

He spoke publicly at the meeting, explaining that his military experience gave him the knowledge to speak with authority about public safety issues.

During his speech, he claimed that he had served in the military for eight years. He also claimed that he had received the Purple Heart, a prestigious medal. However, each of Fields’s claims was false. He had never served in the military, and he had never received a medal. After being found guilty and charged with an $1,000 fine, Fields appealed the court’s decision which brings us here.

Abel Fields argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated, therefore, I will be taking in a count of several similar rulings on other cases to help me make a decision.