The Case

The name of the case i chose is Matter of Marian T. (Lauren R.). This took place on October 14th, 2020. The case is about the adoption of an adult woman who is not capable of giving consent to the adoption due to her disability. This action has worked its way to the court of appeals where the video us taken. The lower courts ruled that Marian did not have the mental faculties to give consent. Caitlin Brennan, council, said that whether or not she has that capacity is not one of the issues they want to bring before the court. The judges however want to press the issue. In a lower court, Dr. Fox tried to argue that while Marian lacks the mental capacity to consent to medical procedures, she is capable of giving consent for other things. However, the lower courts moved on to seemingly agree that Marian lacked the capacity to give consent to adoption. Caitlin Brennan takes the position that the petition made can not go forward due to Marians inability to give consent. The lawyer for the opposition says that Marian can be autonomous and provide consent just not in a conventional “legal” way as we understand it. He also claims Marian can consent nonverbally. Caitlin continues to argue that Marian is an adult not and underage adoptee with the same rights and interests as other adults that must be protected. She continues that nobody should be able to impose a new family structure on her due to her inability to consent.

Personal Response

While watching the case i felt as though the judges were being rather hard on her with their line of questioning. While Caitlin was providing information and citing what statute allows for people to withdraw their ability to consent, one judge quipped and “we would be defining the statute in a way you would disagree with” which i did not think was a good use of court time. I also felt that their line of questioning was pointless, it felt as if a bunch of “what ifs” were being asked for the sake of fun instead of dealing with the case at hand. I personally found Caitlin Brennan’s argument more persuasive. Not only did the lower courts support the opinion but she also had health experts and the legal guardian agree that Marian can not give consent. One thing i did not understand during the hearing was the term “red light”. The judge used that to stop Caitlin from speaking. The term “best interest of the child” also gets tosses around and they don’t really elaborate on it beyond it needing to be decided with discretion.

Link: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/arguments/2020/Oct20/Video/49.html

The court I chose to observe was the “Matter of Marian T (Lauren R.)”. This case was about a disabled 18 year old girl who was still in the adoption system. One side argued that she was not able to consent to the adoption due to her disability. while the other began to state, that in fact she could consent to the adoption just not verbally. I felt that Caitlin Connors Brennan was not seeing the full picture. Instead of focusing on what would be best for Marian she constantly said that the young adult just couldn’t give consent. When asked about what would be in Marians best interest Council Brennan would simply veer the conversation away from it and bring the focus back to the consent issue. I also felt that when the judges began to question Brennan, she didn’t have set answers. A lot of her arguments weren’t back up well and made her points seem invalid. I agree with the courts decision to approve Marians adoption. I felt that they considered Marians best interest now and for the future. Upon listening to this case I was surprised to find out Marian was 18. I had thought that once you were 18 you were released from any foster or adoption system.

In the argument I observed about the People v. Lance Williams case taken place on November 2020, each party had questions and arguments as to why the defendant claimed his possession of a gun was “temporary and lawful” because he held it for a short time and he believed he was in imminent danger. One party had an argument where he said, “I’m struggling with the difference between having a gun legally and or else having an illegally obtained gun that you used in a legal manner.” The attorney has a follow up on his earlier argument that there was a safe disposal as to how the weapon was lawfully obtained. Defendant receives the weapon and events are happening so quickly to process. Williams had every right to believe that he would be in danger for Carson it was completely relevant and lawful with circumstances and under the court’s cases involving situations where a weapon being obtained for self defense at a moment where self defense is imminent and it’s about to happen and that’s what happened.

From what I observed each party had their take on the case and expressed how they felt about it in form of questions. I found each point every party made interesting rather surprising because it opens my eyes more to possible discussions in court. I thought that the judges and lawyers conducted themselves well. The arguments about safe disposal, imminent danger, and having obtained a gun were most persuasive because points they made to answer questions would always go back to the main arguments.

The case I chose is No. 163 Killon v Parrotta from Septeember 15,2016 Court of Appeals – Oral Arguments Archive (state.ny.us)   The argument I observed was between Killon respondent and Parrotta the appellant located in the court of appeals state of New York. Killon was saying that the Appellate Division did an error when reaching its decision based on the case that was presented to them. That they didn’t look at the previous cases evidence and facts to it just made a decision based on what was presented to them originally. Another reason is not taking in acknowledgment who the initial aggressor was. Parrota disagrees says the court maybe didn’t see the full facts but still believes the one who was concluded as the initial aggressor was in fact the initial aggressor was correct in there veridiction.

Well I really can’t say much of the case because I don’t fully understand it for example what didn’t the appellate division not see that made the case invalid in the eyes of Killon. I found it surprising how Killon and I can be wrong mentioned previous cases and how they were resolved intertwining to make a point. As well as the remedy for the verdict to be reinstated. The judges and lawyers job was interesting one I couldn’t hear so well maybe she was sick. The other sometimes interrupted which they can do at any time but I think they should waited to see maybe they get to their question. They conducted themselves as very professional and people who aren’t their to play to hear what they got to say and why they believe such thing as well as kind of serious and mean. I found Parrota arguments more persuasive even though I couldn’t really understand what he meant at the beginning confusing me if he agreed with Killon or no about facts and evidence. I liked what he said of who could be the initial aggressor and why stating his reason and facts why Killon is wrong with that point.

The court case that I have observed was Matter of the Hon. Paul H. Senzer from June 2020.  In this case a judge was taken to court on the context of him sending vulgar and sexist emails to lawyers and clients. As a result of that they are now on trial trying to decided whether or not he should be removed. In this case to my understanding the defendants lawyer is trying to argue to the judges that the punishment that they are giving the judge who has committed these acts is considered as way too harsh, basically that the crime doesn’t fit the punishment. The other party to my understanding is trying to point out that this judge should be held accountable for his actions for disrespecting a individual based off of their gender being that he was sexualizing a women, and also that he knew what he was doing.

Honestly my personal response to this would be that I believed that everyone conducted themselves in an appropriate matter. No one was like yelling or talking over each other or doing things alone those lines. I believe that the judge who committed the act of sending those emails was wrong only because hearing that kind of news puts a bad rep on judges, because in my eyes I look at it as if this was probably the only time he got caught doing this rather then it being his first time doing it if you understand what i’m saying. Also I feel as if the defendants lawyer kept repeating the same thing and trying to make it seem as if the judge who committed the wrongful act did not know what he was doing or as if what he was doing was not bad. In my eyes he made it seem as if it was just a mistake. The other parties side I feel as if he did his best trying to point out why what the judge did was wrong and why he should be punished for it. He tries to tell why the judge having these gender biases , and being inappropriate is something in which he should be held accountable for. I do not think anything surprises me about this case. I feel like I understand what was going on I do not think I understand what the judges was asking or trying to say very well though. I feel like I found the other parties side more persuasive because I feel like he provided many reasons to why what he did was wrong. I think the defendants lawyer did a good job at citing cases even though they did not really go with what the judge did.