Good effort on your Case Brief paper. However, you did not provide the necessary sub-headings for your Case Brief, and this is a serious omission. Furthermore, you needed to include more information under each sub-heading, if you had any. Please always type your names, course number and title, date, and perhaps Instructor's names on top of your papers.
Your grade on this assignment is 82% (B-).
Dr. Dennis A. Ogirri
Washington et al. v. Harold Glucksberg et al.
State of Iowa, Appellate, V. John Michael Richmond, Appellant
February 17, 1999
John Richmond had been in a sexual; relationship with a young lady by the name of Robyn Knell. Unfortunately the relationship ended. Richmond took it upon himself to force Robyn Knell to perform sexual intercourse with a knife to her throat. Based on the Iowa Code Section 709.1, "Any sex act between people is sexual abuse by either of the persons when the act is performed with the other person, the act is done by force against someone, a person is a child, or a person suffering from a mental illness. Fr. Dick Osing had been Richmond's counselor for quite some time. When the incident took place, Richmond confided into Osing about the events that had taken place. He was later arrested for sexual abuse in the second degree violating the Iowa Code Section 709.1. According to Legal Match, the clergy privilege is a form of communication. This communication exists between priests, rabbis, and ministers. This simply means that if you are revealing or conversing with your clergy and they ate acting as a religious personnel it cannot be revealed in court. For example. when you are having a conversation with your pastor and disclose sensitive information it cannot be used against you in the court. The priest-penitent is considered to be a state law. In the state of Iowa, if you are confessing sensitive information the persons must be a religious advisor. It is not granted if you are having a normal conversation with a priest. Also, if another individual is involved (third party) they must also be a clergy that you are speaking with. If both of the expectations are met, the information in court cannot be used against you.
In the state of Washington, assisting with suicide has always been illegal. In Washington v. Glucksberg four Washington physicians, three ill patients, and non-profit organizations filed a law suit against the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. They argued that the Washington Reserved Code Section (A.36.060 was unconstitutional and violated the fifth and fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The court’s decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals through the ninth circuit and later reached the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist decided to reject the constitutional claim.
The Supreme Court ruled that Washington's ban on assisting suicide favored the state interest, but did not violate the 14th Amendment. The statue originally stated, "Anyone including physicians from aiding or causing another to commit suicide is constitutional". Glucksberg argued that the Washington statue violated the fourteenth amendment of due process. However, the ruling in this case stated that the right to commit suicide is not a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment". Later the Supreme Court ruled against Washington, stating that it did not violate due process. The Washington statue is presumed as constitutional, and if challenged must be shown to only benefit the interest of the state. The Supreme Court argued that the state of Washington has shown an unqualified interest in the preservation of human life, interest in protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical professions, and an interest in protecting vulnerable groups. These interests prove that the Washington statue is legal and does not violate any fundamental right. The political motivation of the