Sackler vs Sackler

Posted: January 31, 2017

The novel Carol and the book are about two women from two different social backgrounds. The first woman had an affluent background while the other was from a poor background. In the book, Carol had an affair with another woman. The act was tape recorded in the hotel room where they met. Through this, she lost custody of her child in the divorce court because the video was used as the evidence of adultery in the New York Courts where it is permissible. Despite the adultery, an ethical perspective validates that the tape was not supposed to be used as proof or evidence in the court to safeguard the victims privacy. Besides, the mechanism of obtaining this tape breached her privacy and subsequent leak and employed in the tribunal of law facilitated psychological torture to Carol. Similarly, the novel illustrates that Carol’s mistake was falling in love with Theresa. The affair was evident in her diary and the letter that Theresa left for her. Despite this evidence, the letter could not be used as evidence because it would invade her privacy since it was in one of her books by the maid.

In line with the prevailing circumstances, the chief judge Desmond gave the plaintiff husband divorce of his wife citing adultery evidence obtained through illegal and forcible entry into his wife’s home. Besides, the proceeding argued that this evidence was admissible because the trial and the appellate were agreeable. Therefore, the case of Carol and Theresa regarding the tape and the love letter in the state of New York divorce indicate acceptability for use of similar evidence by the jury. Desmond also highlighted that no evidence in constitution shows decisional authority on the rejection of valid evidence. Therefore, the evidence found on Carol was bound to be used despite individual reservations, for instance, illegal search of proof and invasion of privacy.

In the love letter that was found by maid Florence, Theresa and Carol should not expect any privacy protection. Similarly, Sackler v. Sackler exemplified the non-existence of illegal search for evidence when investigating an offense. Therefore, if such evidence is presented in court, persons should not expect any privacy. Furthermore, this particular incidence was non-government case making it easy to incorporate the evidence. However, the jury ought to consider other personal concerns, for example, the constitutional right to privacy and exclusionary. In this context, Theresa left the letter behind, and it was obtained without Carol’s permission. By exclusionary clauses, the evidence should have been considered irrelevant because it invaded the privacy of a private citizen. Thus, it is permissible to claim that the searches were unreasonable and contravened the United States Constitution providing protection of individual rights.

Besides, the electronic surveillance is not different from the letter since it showed nature of the relationship. Both of them when used in court definitely would weaken the case for Carol. The surveillance camera showed the number of times they met and the type of relationship including the letter that Florence discovered in the book. According to the Sackler's case, it contravened the eavesdropping statute, and the evidence could not be used in the court. Hence, it is justifiable to mention that the two pieces of evidence of the surveillance and the letter are evidence of invasion of privacy just like eavesdropping. Therefore, the evidence should not be used in the case, Carol and Theresa.

In the Sackler v. Sackler case, the evidence used was ruled out for a different reason that was used in the court. In the event of the Carol and the Nook, the evidence was not supposed to be used due to the grounds stated above like the invasion of privacy. In New York, civil rights law, the invasion of privacy is not allowed, and evidence produced in that manner should not be used in court.  

My opinion about the case of the Carol is that she had an affair with a woman, and the court used that to grant custody of her child to her husband. The evidence used was illegally obtained since it was through the invasion of privacy comprising both the tape and the love letter. Though in Sackler case Judge Desmond said that no evidence could be used, and it is not stated anywhere in the constitution. The viewpoint is likely to create confusion meaning that any evidence can be used especially the jury. It is also stated in the Sackler's case that there is no illegal search of proof that I disagree because it can lead to many things like the invasion of privacy itself. Nonetheless, some cases like those that the one that Judge Cardozo was taking care of shows that evidence that was wrongly obtained should not be used by in the court. The principal concern is that most of them invaded other people’s privacy. If this were to be applied to Carol’s case, the judge would have avoided the evidence found in the letter and the tape from the hotel.

Ultimate discount!

Check the discount here

Order now