Legal Issues

Definition
Hearsay is any secondhand information or statement that a witness heard from another person and did not have the privilege of seeing or hearing it. At the same time it can be defined as any statement that is made outside a trial and which can be presented at the hearing to prove the accuracy of the contents of the statements made. It is basically any statement (Allen, 1992). However the word statement means more than oral declaration about something. It can take the form of written declarations, affidavits, letters, memos, legal documents and computer files made outside the court which can be presented in court and used to establish that their contents are legitimate. If for example a witness engages in an assertive action e.g. pointing at an individual in a line up of suspects will be considered as a statement.

The Hearsay Rule
The rule states that any testimony given in court by a witness during trial is not considered hearsay unless the witness tries to repeat something that was said or written by somebody else. The premise is that any form of hearsay either spoken or written can not be admissible in court because it is regarded as unreliable (McCormick, 1930). The rule further requires the provision of an oath and cross-examination to attend its introduction since truth is only ascertained if answers are unrehearsed. In the event that the marker of the statement does not testify, he can not therefore be cross-examined nor his demeanor observed or his credibility attested. The rule argues that statements made orally have the possibility of being altered while those made formally may be tailored to suit the party making them (Allen, 1992). The hearsay rule only accepts statements presented to prove that certain words were spoken but not that they are necessarily true. During other instances, the court may allow certain statements to be offered not purposely for their truth value but in an attempt to show the state of mind of the witness. This is because some statements are offered primarily to show their effect on the person hearing them with the endeavor of evaluating their reaction thereafter e.g. utterances made in a state of anger.

Criticism against the Hearsay Rule
In so far as the existing law of hearsay consists of exceptions, it has been widely criticized as being arbitrary, illogical and excessively complex. First and foremost, the rule of exception has never been absolute. Though the exceptions had become well established, the recognition of the exceptions in terms of how and when is not known. This is because the development of the law has taken place in a piecemeal fashion hence the law can not and has not been regarded as logical and coherent. For example the court can automatically give an exception to hearsay in the event that the statement by a witness in its nature is most likely to be true. In addition, various refinements and qualifications can be found within a single exception which is mostly inconsistent with the reason upon which the exception was built.

Secondly, the rule results in injustice. Records of a witness who is either dead or unavailable are not admissible in court yet they would sufficiently prove the innocence of the defendant (Zuckerman, 1989). The rule forbids the introduction of these records as evidence on the premise that the evidence is not given under oath and is also not subject to cross-examination. Conversely, as a matter of practice, the witness if he were alive would have been allowed the opportunity to refer back to the notes to refresh his memory before cross-examination, consequently, whether the owner of the records was to be cross-examined were he alive or the court admitted the records in the proceedings, the records would still become actual evidence. Therefore, the hearsay rule deprives the court the only available evidence on a particular issue and at the same time denies the defendant justice. It is believed that once hearsay statements are admissible in court mere rumor, unsubstantiated statements from witnesses who are unidentified and evidence of no probative value would be let in (McCormick, 1930).

Thirdly, records of regularly conducted activity e.g. business records which include records of bank accounts or annual business reports can be presented in court. The court exempts them as hearsay by virtue of the fact that all businesses keep accurate and dependable records and would therefore not compromise their affairs by keeping faulty and inaccurate records hence they are inherently reliable. Nevertheless, technological advancement and widespread use of computers makes the validity of the records to be questioned since the possibility that they were not compiled by any human agency is highly probable. Public reports and records of vital statistics are also always deemed reliable and trustworthy because the government and the public rely on them and there is no impulsion for the government to falsify the records hence they are admissible in court as evidence. However, these records can not guarantee full reliability, as a result, a responsible person must be called upon to give evidence as to the reliability of the systems that were used to compile the records and a notice of such evidence should be accessible to the other party (Waltz and Park, 1999).

Additionally, the rule confuses witnesses and therefore prevents them from giving an actual account of the events leading to the trial. This because the rule is highly restrictive refuting the recall of information said by another person in the witness box. Hearsay statements hugely add to the cost and time in the course of proving facts issued in court which are not necessarily in dispute and could end up being unreliable. Tax payers money is misused since the government is forced to allocate extra funds for the proceeding activities.
The jury is forced to spend more time on the issue in an attempt to prove the legitimacy of the statements. Though some of the statements will have some patina of reliability, more often than not, the documents will not be accurate. Therefore, the government inevitably ends up spending more money in paying the jury for the additional time in the court proceedings, for the upkeep of the witnesses for the whole period of the proceedings and in conducting further investigations to verify the truth and establish the authenticity of the hearsay statements or records.

Due to the numerous exceptions of the rule of hearsay, it immensely adds to the technicality and complexity of the law of evidence. Hearsay evidence, though characterized as untrustworthy and unreliable, is admitted in court under copious exceptions found in the common law and in other current statutes (McCormick, 1930). There are a total of twenty eight standard exceptions to the hearsay rule recognized by the Federal Rule of Evidence. This is in addition to the non-hearsay exceptions and the residue hearsay exceptions adopted by the Congress in an effort to promulgate the Federal Rules. Though the rules through which the exceptions were developed were aimed at increasing the credibility of the hearsay statements, finer distinctions of the exceptions have developed making it difficult in not only applying the exceptions effectively but also in  exhaustively explaining the rule of hearsay.

Finally, the rule deprives the court of vital material essential in ascertaining the truth. The admission of certain vital documents or records is often refuted with the court arguing that such records are not conclusive and can be therefore be challenged through the presentation of contradicting evidence. For example, family records contained in genealogies, tombstones, family portraits and engravings on rings or urns are inadmissible yet they could provide strong evidence during paternity andor inheritance cases.

Exceptions of the Hearsay Rule
Hearsay though not offered in court in most circumstances because of its untrustworthy and unreliable nature and the fact that the person who made the original assertions is often unavailable for cross examination, many exceptions abound since it can be admitted rather than rejected or excluded in a court of law (Allen, 1992).

However, before any hearsay statement is presented in court, several rules abide. The hearsay statement ought to be trustworthy enough and unfabricated for it to be introduced in court in the absence of the declarants testimony. Trustworthiness is very vital since if it is lacking the credibility of the statement is questioned. There are a total of twenty eight exceptions to the hearsay rule. Some of the common exceptions are in the case where an in-court testimony by a witness and the out-of-court statement contradict this is referred to as an admission against interest. In ordinary circumstances, the statement ought not to be permitted nevertheless the court is allowed to present the out-of court statement not for the purpose of verifying if the statement is true or false but in a bid to question and cast doubt on the credibility of the witness. However, the witness is entitled to comment on his out-of-court statement and sufficiently explain any discrepancy between it and the testimony he made earlier in court.

Spontaneous or excited utterances commonly referred to as statements made to a startling condition while under stress by the Federal Review of Evidence, are admissible in court. The premise is based on the principle that human behavior mostly involves reflection and planning and at times self-interest. However, in the event of an unexpected occurrence such as an accident, an individual may not have the time to plan and reflect on his utterances. Consequently, the court most often in the case of an emergency call through 911 can allow the police to give a testimony on behalf of the victim and the utterances are not considered hearsay (Zuckerman, 1989).

Records are usually exempted from the hearsay rule. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, the most commonly encountered form of hearsay is factual records which are mostly prepared by individuals other than the witness. The law assumes that organizations whether a church, parastatal or a business create and keep records which are accurate. Recorded recollections e.g. a memorandum or a diary are permissible in court in the event that the witness at present has insufficient recollection concerning a particular matter to enable him to testify accurately. The records in the witnesss writing will act as sufficient evidence thereby providing the court with the required level of reliability (Keane, 2000).

The hearsay statements however do not form the basis for the final judgment. Though the judge may permit the hearsay statements to be recorded as evidence, the jury has the discretion to decide whether the case will enter into a guilty or not guilty verdict or more so an acquittal.

RE RECCOMENDATION TO JOIN WTO

It is imperative to realize that the 1994 Uruguay treaty or agreement formed round eight of the negotiations that centered on multilateral trade. The negotiations took place within the GATT framework which started from 1985-1994. Within this period, over 100 members joined the treaty in the capacity of contracting parties (Gallagher, 2004, p 23-45).   Hence, as the financial manager of gasprom company I am drawn by the fact that the Uruguay agreement has many members who could be enjoying several benefits related to trade. This is particularly true because the 1994 treaty or agreement has several areas of importance which could prove useful to the company and Russia as a whole.

The first importance of the treaty is that it establishes a formula through which different countries of the world can access foreign markets better in order to trade their goods with minimal conflicts. Through its reciprocity principle, the 1994 agreement ensures that member countries gain significantly from trading with one another. The second importance is that through its valves of safety, the 1994 treaty establishes the need for fair competition which ensures that no country takes undue advantage over the other in terms balance of trade. The third importance of the 1994 treaty is that it opens up a play ground for the service sector particularly insurance and banking in different member countries.

In this respect, any member country who desires to invest in insurance or banking sector can do so with minimal limitations in any of the WTO member countries. This means that the 1994 treaty was a method of advancing trade between countries and reducing the costs that could otherwise be incurred by such countries if they had not become part of the treaty. The other benefit is that member countries are well protected from violations of copyrights through well set codes which also go along way into dealing with violations of intellectual property. This means that member countries can undertake high skilled innovations and inventions with little fear of violation of copyright or violations of intellectual property.  The above benefits of the 1994 treaty are effective to the extent that they apply to a member country as stipulated in each of the above benefits.

In this regard, Russia would therefore benefit significantly by becoming the WTO member because it would enjoy reduced tariffs whenever its goods enter the WTO market. This means that Russia being one of the most developed countries would vitally enjoy increased gains from its trade because its goods would be cheap and therefore find more consumers in other WTO member countries and therefore it would attain a comparative advantage. Many companies in Russia such as gasprom would benefit because of the widened market for goods and services as well as cheap sources of resources that would be channeled back home for the purpose of increasing production. It is therefore vital for Russia to become part of the 19994 agreementtreaty.

Since, the treaty gives freedom for the parliaments of the member countries to ratify what they consider as important or vital to them, Russia can make use of its parliament to get exempted from such clauses of the treaty that bind member countries to any United Nations related issues in order to ensure that its membership is strictly limited to trade and not on other matters pertaining to the UN. This would ensure that Russian companies set out to the wider WTO market to achieve economic benefits.          

Sovereign immunity offers protection to the government against legal actions while statutory immunity protects individuals in specific situations against legal action. This paper will explore the differences that exist between statutory and sovereign immunity.

 Difference between Sovereign and Statutory Immunity
Sovereign immunity is an act of common law which stipulates that the government shall not be held liable for any wrong actions in tort. It is derived from an old English principle which assumed that the King could not do anything wrong. In the United States, sovereign immunity is applied to bar individuals from suing the government, the state as well as the local authority in tort. Therefore, for anyone to sue the sovereign government, it has to consent to it first (Varone 2007, p.250).

On the other hand, statutory immunity refers to an act that protects specific individuals against legal actions. Protection from liability under statutory immunity differs from state to state. In some states, it applies in the tort claims acts whereas in others it only applies in certain situations or individuals. This differs from sovereign immunity which applies uniformly in all states (Varone 2007, p.265).

Further still, statutory immunity used under tort claims acts usually applies in acts that are performed during a governmental function whereas the ones that are not under tort apply in governmental, proprietary, functionary as well as discretionary acts. It covers such individuals as good Samaritans, fire departments, providers of emergency medical services as well as AED stakeholders (Varone 2007, p.266).

This is different from sovereign immunity which covers only individuals working under the government. More to the point, sovereign immunity only offers protection to governments when performing a governmental function while proprietary function of the government is not protected from liability. Broadly therefore, sovereign immunity protects only a specific group of individuals as it only relates to governmental functions whereas statutory immunity covers a diverse group of individuals (Varone 2007, p.263).

Public service workers like emergency medical responders and firefighters, are frequently hired under a contract of employment.  While provisions are basically general in terms, sometimes there are specific areas that are more emphasized than others.  There are items of interest surrounding an employees employment with regard to resigning and being discharged.  A process has been implemented in order to protect the reputations of both the place of employment and the employee.  In the public service employment field, is it possible for an employee to propose a resignation and then rescind the resignation citing duress
   
Much depends on the circumstances surrounding an employee resigning.  The particulars of this scenario are unclear, therefore, this interpretation will be written as though the resignation was not called for or foreseen.  In order for an employee to be able to claim undue duress, he or she must be able to prove that there was some form of threat or fear instilled into them by an authority in charge (Varone, 2007).  Since public service employees are retained under contract, in order to void or break the contract the request to do so must also be mutually agreed upon by both the employer and employee.
   
If the worker wishes to rescind the resignation originally entered, then he must follow protocol to void the submitted resignation.  First, a letter must be prepared and served to the employer to withdraw the resignation citing the reasons for duress.  Secondly, it must be shown what each party anticipates receiving if the employee remains on the job.  This establishes the need for the employee.  It must be shown that there is a risk to the business if the employee leaves as well as a financial burden.  Finally, a pre-termination and a post-termination hearing may be held.  The pre-termination hearing would be the most likely place where the employees resignation could be rejected and the employment relationship could remain status quo.

Neighborhood or community policing is a philosophy or strategy of policing that was founded on the concept of community support and interaction with the law enforcers in a move that was greatly aimed at reducing fear and controlling crime. This is possible since the members of the community can assist the police in bringing various security problems to the police officers attention, detaining vandals and identifying suspects. Using community policing as a policing approach encourages organizational strategies that assist in the systematic application of problem solving and partnership techniques, in proactively addressing the instantaneous conditions that normally bring about issues of public safety such as social disorder, crime fear and crime (Liou  Savage, 1996).

Community policing
In essence, community policing is the collaboration between the community and the police that not only identifies but also solves various community problems. Under community policing, the police officers cease to be the sole custodians of order and law, they are instead helped by all the community members who become very active partners in contributing to efforts that are aimed at enhancing and promoting safety in the neighborhoods. This policing approach which is relatively new has implications that are far reaching. The extended stance of crime prevention and control, increased emphasis on making all community members participants with an active role in the in the problem solving process, and the pivotal role of patrol officers in this approach of policing requires changes that are profound within the institute of law enforcers (Mathiesen, 2006)

Community policing increases the effectiveness of police officers since they are made to be more proactive in their duties of maintaining security in the neighborhoods. The people who bring about insecurity within the community live among the community members and are best known to the community members compared to the police officers. This therefore means that, it is the community members who are best placed in assisting police officers in identifying and arresting such people. The essence of community policing is basically to reduce the gap that existed in traditional policing approach between the police officers and community members, whereby each party perceived the other with a lot of suspicion with little trust if any between them (Liou  Savage, 1996).

By working closely with members of community, the police employing neighborhood policing strategy are at a better chance of protecting and detecting crimes in the neighborhoods. In this case, police are in a position of serving the community members better since they are able to prevent crimes from taking place unlike in the traditional approach where they could rush to scenes where crimes have already taken place and people have already suffered. The members of community assist the police in detecting various crimes and thus prevent such crimes from taking place and thus reducing crime rate in the neighborhoods (Liou  Savage, 1996).

Conclusion
Reinvigorating societies is very essential in deterring crime from taking place and creating moral neighborhoods where crime is not given an opportunity of thriving. There are therefore needs to break down the barriers of mistrust and apathy that exist between the police and the community members. Such breakdown can pave way for the forging of partnerships that are meaningful to both the community members and the police officers. Trust is a very important value that links and underlies components of problem solving and community partnership with the law enforcers so that all can have a chance of living in safe neighborhoods without fear and victimization. This can effectively be achieved through community policing since it creates a trust foundation that permits police to develop closer links with community members.

Islamic law, also called Sharia because it is derived from the Arabic word Shariah meaning the way or the path. Islamic law is an elaborate collection of decrees governing civil justice as well as criminal justice and statutes regulating the conduct of every individual in an Islamic community. Islamic law is an intricate code of individual and community conduct that has its origin in a rich cultural, intellectual and religious tradition. Islamic law is a generalization of the opinion of Muslim followers from all over the world over generations, based on cultural evolution and religious literature that is so extensive that is why Islamic law has not been drafted or authorized by any single establishment or entity (Vogel, 2000).

In the beginning, the early Muslim communities were more concerned with the pragmatic application of the Islamic faith, the relationship between religion and the exertion of authority that with the theoretical bit. It was the jurist Muhammad ibn Idris who wrote down in his book Al-Risala the basic principles that need be followed while administering jurisprudence according to the Islamic faith. Much later in the 19th century, there was a need, due to emerging challenges in a modern world, for Islamic law to re-invent itself. Many nations in the Muslim world had been colonized by western powers the global community was on a transition from the agricultural system to the industrial system. The global community was undergoing a lot of changes as new ideas, opinions and beliefs emerged (Weiss, 2002). Consequently, even though Islamic scholarship remained the major force guiding the lives of Muslims culturally, religiously and politically, there emerged sharp divisions on how to best react to these changes while still upholding the relevance and significance of the Muslim faith. The secularists hold that religion and state should be separated the traditionalists believe that traditional legal views should be considered while defining the law of the state and the reformers advocate for a more liberalized approach whereby new Islamic theories are used in the formulation of modernized law of the state according to Islamic teachings.

In Afghanistan, Islamic law was entrenched under the Taliban regime and was first founded on the denouncement of Islamic fundamentalism characterizing the medieval form of Islamic law and the current government of President Hamid Karzai continues to implement it. The people of Afghanistan favor the existence of an Islamic state and there is little indication that any time I the foreseeable future that there could be a purely secular system defining the penal code and criminal proceedings.

Since Afghanistan is still emerging from the failed states status, its central government does not have an absolute monopoly in terms of dictating the legal order of the day. Long stints under civil law have weakened the constitutional and legal order in Afghanistan, and therefore her courts only apply Islamic law and not the provisions of the constitution (Aisa, 2006).

The judiciary in Afghanistan is hierarchically composed of in descending order, with the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal and at the bottom, Primary courts. In most cases due to remoteness in some parts of Afghanistan, traveling courts are established with the authorization of the President of the Islamic republic. The judiciary is constitutionally empowered to resolve disputes arising between individuals, groups and businesses, but the application of Islamic la continues to draw sharp reactions.

Everyday upon reading the newspaper you can see different issues such as global warming, acid rain, oil leaks and so forth . We have what others call an environmental anxiety. In recent years a campaign such as the green movement  has become the focus of different organizations both private and government alike. Involved in the effort saving the planet.
 
Which led to the creation of the US- EPA tasked in monitoring , enforcement activities and standard setting in protecting the environment and the American people. Environmental laws are based on the principle  That the polluter pays it is the responsibility of the business that they comply with EPA laws and standard . Many of these environmental changes can be linked with bellow standard of production and waste disposal adopted by companies.

The government expects that companies do comply with set rules and standards in order for them to be allowed to do  business activities. There is an  initial cost in going green. But if you are going to look at it in the long run the benefits outweight the cost , by providing consumers high quality and more efficient products and ultimately saving the planet.

Companies should look into ways in lowering the cost of production and balance between profit and going green. And in the process save on penalties and legal obligation the government would impose on violations. Going green is not only a social but also an ethical and moral obligation of companies in safeguarding the environment and the safety of the people