Clark v. Sweeney: Why Courts Can't Invent Arguments for Defendants скачать в хорошем качестве

Clark v. Sweeney: Why Courts Can't Invent Arguments for Defendants

In the 2025 Supreme Court case Clark v. Sweeney, the Justices ruled that courts must act as neutral referees rather than creating their own legal arguments. The case involved Jeremiah Sweeney, who was convicted of murder after a juror visited the crime scene without permission. Sweeney asked for a new trial because he believed his lawyer provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate if other jurors were influenced by that visit. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted him a new trial, but they based the decision on a reason Sweeney never actually argued. The Supreme Court reversed this ruling because it violated the "party presentation principle". This principle states that judges must only decide on the specific issues presented by the parties involved. Consequently, the Supreme Court sent the case back and ordered the lower court to review only the original claim Sweeney made about his lawyer. #Civics #congress #usa #government #podcast #howgovernmentworks #politics #analysis #latestupdate #legislation #american #education #USHistory #ExecutiveBranch #JudiciaryBranch #Constitution #executiveorder #scotus #shutdown #republican #republican #democrats #democrat