Question

Without going into the specifics of the charge, the defendant was found guilty of violating an obscure state law in a county court. Since the law was enacted a century ago, not a single person has been charged with violating it in the state. As a result, this case was essentially new territory for state prosecutors and the presiding county court judge. The case is being appealed. The defense attorney is confident that the verdict will be overturned based on a failure of what they perceive as the judge not abiding by precedent. This claimed precedent refers to a recent highly publicized case in another state that involved a similar law. As a noted legal scholar, the state judiciary has called you in to assess the validity of the appeal. When asked for your preliminary thoughts by a senior state prosecutor, specifically if you believe the judge failed to follow precedent in offering his opinion, how do you respond

Answer 1

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 past event and/or action which is used as a guide when considering the course of action for a similar situation. Given the keyword "similar" in this definition, it can be argued that in order for precedent to apply to a situation, it is not necessary for the details of each situation to be identical.

Therefore, the defense attorney can argue the failure to follow precedent based solely on the similarly obscure nature of each law. Furthermore, if the defense attorney is able to procure evidence of past infractions of this law for which no charges were upheld, 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