Author Question: Clark, a movie producer, was allowed to work at a movie production company's offices (ITC) out of ... (Read 108 times)

CharlieWard · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Clark, a movie producer, was allowed to work at a movie production company's offices (ITC) out of courtesy. His business card listed the ITC address and his phone calls were handled by ITC staff. In the office, he made a deal to produce a movie for another company. When problems developed and the company, presuming Clark worked for ITC, sued ITC. The court would be likely to hold that ITC:
a. ratified Clark's actions and so became liable for his actions
b. expressly accepted contracts negotiated by Clark, so was liable for the failure to perform c. had no liability because Clark merely was allowed to use office space at ITC
d. had no liability because Clark had no authority to represent ITC in movie decisions e. none of the other choices

Question 2

Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment secures to a defendant who faces possible imprisonment the right to counsel at all critical stages of the criminal process, including the arraignment and the trial. In 1996, Felipe Tovar, a twenty-one-year-old college student, was arrested in Ames, Iowa, for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (OWI). Tovar was informed of his right to apply for court-appointed counsel and waived it. At his arraignment, he pleaded guilty. Six weeks later, he appeared for sentencing, again waived his right to counsel, and was sentenced to two days' imprisonment. In 1998, Tovar was convicted of OWI again, and in 2000, he was charged with OWI for a third time. In Iowa, a third OWI offense is a felony. Tovar asked the court not to use his first OWI conviction to enhance the third OWI charge. He argued that his 1996 waiver of counsel was not intelligent because the court did not make him aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. What determines whether a person's choice in any situation is intelligent? What should determine whether a defendant's waiver of counsel is intelligent at critical stages of a criminal proceeding?

lorealeza77 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

a

Answer to Question 2

Sixth Amendment
The Sixth Amendment provides a defendant who is facing possible jail time with the right to counsel at all critical stages of the process. In many states, if a person has two prior misdemeanor convictions for certain offenses, such as drunk driving or petty theft, and commits the same offense again, that third offense may be charged as a felony because of the prior convictions. That was the situation facing Tovar, who pleaded guilty to the first drunk driving offense without being advised by an attorney that the conviction could be used against him if he committed the same offense in the future. Tovar is claiming that the court in his third drunk driving case should not be able to count his prior conviction for driving under the influence (to make the current charge a felony) because he did not intelligently waive his right to counsel when he pled guilty to the first offense. The question asks what factors a court should consider in determining if the defendant intelligently waived his right to counsel. The lower court held that Tovar had intelligently waived his right to counsel, but that decision was appealed. Ulti-mately, the case came before the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the intelligence of any decision depends on a person's education and sophistication, as well as the complexity of the issue to be decided. According to the Court, at the plea stage, a defendant's waiver of counsel is intelligent when the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open. At the trial stage, a defendant must be warned specifically of . . . the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The Court remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether Tovar's waiver in the first case had been intelligent, taking into consideration Tovar's level of education and sophistication, and whether he had understood the potential effect of the prior conviction for driving under the influence.