Why would against the 6th Amendments right to council in a criminal case.
-Make sure to read all announcements and most importantly around exam times.
-The Professor has 2-3 days to grade the exam and once graded you need to check your grade book. I do not release exam grades via email.
-For any directions only contact your Professor, DO NOT use “all student” email to email other students because this only confuses them and points will be deducted as well as violations of the course policies
–Most exams you are given a FULL WEEK to complete. I also indicate day one of the course what the exam will cover and include. Do not email me the last minute to turn in work or ask any questions. I may not be available the hour before an exam so it is important to plan ahead.
– Review the sample exam to gain an A. Follow the length, and structured, apply APA format and go in depth. It is not too rough but points are deducted for failing to following the samples.
-Please do BOTH (1) copy and paste your work into the dropbox comment are or area provided, PLUS (2) attach the file. PLEASE DO BOTH. For attachments it must be in word. If it is any other format, or I am unable to open the file (such as word perfect) a 0 (zero) will be granted and no re-submissions will be allowed)
-See your course due dates for any dates as well as announcements. These are set and well planned week 1.
-Do not use work you previously submitted this term or a past one, do not work with anyone and do not plagiarize. This will result in a 0/F and I want you to gain an A!
-1 page each question, APA format.
-Keep an eye on your gradebook for grades. I am unable to respond to “confirm” if it is submitted or not, you can do so with tech support if needed.
NOTE +++IF YOUR TEXT DOES NOT HAVE END OF CHAPTER QUESTIONS, YOU MAY SUMMARIZE EACH CHAPTER IN DEPTH, THAT MEANS ALL CHAPTERS 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6
EXAM worth 25 points.
READ ALL OF THE DIRECTIONS OR POINTS WILL BE DEDUCTED.
Grades will be final and I will not discuss the grade or
change a grade under any circumstances.
Work alone.
IMPORTANT NOTES:
Feel free to attach and/or copy and paste the work into the provided drop box.
No emailed papers will count.
IF YOUR CLASS HAS A DROPBOX THAT IS THE MAIN AREA TO SUBMIT THE EXAM
If I cannot open it I will not GRADE IT.
I will not accept ANY late work for exams.
FOLLOW THE DATES IN THE SYLLABUS ONLY!
YOU HAVE till the date listed on the syllabus to email it back to me. Good luck!
USE APA FORMAT
Please email me with any questions. DO NOT WORK WITH ANYONE! Put time into it and go IN DEPTH!
Please apply Primary sources, journals, articles, etc.
The Midterm is essay/short answer. Use the readings, the discussion board posts, real life experiences and what we have discussed this term. Work hard and you will excel! I am looking forward to seeing your work! Remember to cite the textbook, go in depth. The more you put into it the better you will do. 1-4 sentences will not due and your grade will reflect the work you put in. Cite the book, articles, and any other means such as experiences to expand on your thoughts. I gave you samples of the in depth and citing I am looking for below. DO NOT DO A QUESTION YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS TERM OR IT WILL NOT COUNT.
NOTE +++IF YOUR TEXT DOES NOT HAVE END OF CHAPTER QUESTIONS, YOU MAY SUMMARIZE EACH CHAPTER IN DEPTH, THAT MEANS ALL CHAPTERS 1,2,3,4, 5 and 6
Good Luck!
COVERS CHAPTERS 1,2,3,4,5, and 6
GRADE
To calculate your grade, divide the number I gave you by the total Amount of points possible (25) That will be your score.
HERE ARE SOME EXCELLENT SAMPLE EXAM RESPONSES:
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL 6 QUESTIONS, NOT ONLY 1
SAMPLE RESPONSE 1
In Chapter 7, I would like to go over the 2nd question on page 377. Abrams asks us if were to represent Reid, would we have been willing to sign the requested affirmation as talked about in the case. Personally I would not have signed the affirmation either. Under the Special Administration Measures, (SAMs) ass it applies to this case would have made it possible for the Co-council or the other lawyers and attorneys to speak with Reid without Reid’s attorneys being present. Why would against the 6th Amendments right to council in a criminal case. So I believe they made the right choice by not signing and I would have done the same. To not allow Reid to consult with his attorneys truly is a violation on the proper way we perform defense for council. The attorneys are subordinate to the laws of the court in every aspect and must abide by them. They cannot begin to utilize procedure twisting it to compliment their agenda.
In chapter 8, Abrams asks the reader what the implications were to Judge Robertson’s conclusion on the issue of defendant’s access to classified information as affirmed in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Basically Judge Robertson concluded that excluding the defendant from a hearing room when classified information or evidence that is being presented is a major flaw for the military commission because the defendant would not be informed of that information properly. The mere fact that Detailed Defense Council who did have security clearances that were eligible to be present and hear the information would not be enough to protect the defendant’s rights. Ultimately the government has a choice to make. If the Preceding military judge determines that alternatives may not be used and the government objects to disclosure of information, then by that time the conflict created by the need of the government to protect classified information and the defendant’s right to be present has no resolve. The only options left are to strike the testimony of a witness or declare a mistrial. If the evidence has no revalance or meaning to the defense then the charges must be dismissed. I honestly believe that this is a fair and honest approach to such a dilemma.
References
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning? Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.
SAMPLE RESPONSE 2
In the second edition of Anti-Terrorism and Criminal Enforcement, intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, begins in Chapter 2. Chapter 1 mainly focuses on the introductory of this book. Also he gives us so it gives us significant places and examples that are found in the book. Chapter 1 includes that the main emphasis is placed on this book is to tell us about domestic laws in the United States.
We examine legal definitions laws and bylaws that have made terrorism laws what it is today. Identify with the USA Patriot Act, it examines the different languages, it also shows us the world after 9/11. Chapter 1 is divided into parts, Introduction, Overview, introduction gives us US war on terrorism and I how it came about, and all those who are involved, overview shows us just how America is going about fighting this new war.
In this book as Chapter one indicates we will examine the legal category of terrorism’s and the definition of terrorism, terrorist, and related terms and phrases. Foreign policies that will interpret just what happens in other countries because a terrorist. Also it will discuss what American agents rules are in foreign countries, and also this book will focus on the Pentagon, Congress, Commander-in-Chief of United States in their roles in this war.
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act added a new section 222 (5301) to the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act sets out detailed statutory requirements for persons interviewing for visa application for the first time. This new provision is interpreting advisory with respect to foreign diplomats and officials. In other words the department’s regulations permitting exemptions from interviews for certain diplomats and officials remain in effect. This act is mainly centered on keeping terror style of his country
Section 5301 also under this particular act a person must be an interview if they are between the ages of 14 and 79 unless they are eligible for a waiver. Also under 5301 section 222 give the Secretary of State waive their rights. In the signing statement President George W. Bush made it clear that his administration would treat 5301 as advisory.
Therefore the department regulations permitting exemptions from interviews for persons in certain categories and classifications. This act does not give one person authority to make decisions on their own. President Bush indicated that this would be and advisory. The classifications that are exempt from interviews under 5301 section 222 are as followed: A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3 and so on. My understanding is that section 222 is just advisory, to give diplomatic people special privileges. I don’t see where it affects the war on terrorism; it looks like bureaucracy, someone trying. President Bush signed a bill that is very iffy; it has no control over the outcome of the war on terrorism. If we are to win this war we must put forth a better effort, wasting vital energy and time doing nothing. 9/11 triggered the US attack on terrorism, it started several decades ago, but it is now on the move. Following the attack on the Pentagon the twin Towers in New York the war on terrorism took a new turn. I believe that Congress, United States government, Commander-in-Chief Bush must share the power to reach a common goal, that goal is destroying terrorism domestic a worldwide.
References
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning? Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.
SAMPLE RESPONSE 3
On the 25th day of November 2002 President Bush signed into law Homeland Security Act, which established a new Department of Homeland Security. Initially it looked as though the department created by new legislation would easily make the Congress; it was a political fight to the end. The Senate fought from July to November 2002 to exempt the new employees from federal protection. Homeland Security Act altogether had 170,000 employees and a budget 30 billion dollars.
In addition to adding the Coast Guard, and Secret Service, it also added federal immigrations bureaucracy and transferred it into the new Department. After 9/11 many in Congress criticized the Immigration and Naturalization Services for allowing the hijackers to enter the country and use the planes to attack the twin Towers.
After the birth of Homeland Security Act there came several more, legislation to help improve our safety. America began increasing in its border protection, developed plans to help patrol and improve patrolling Mexico- US borders. It also tightened patrol between Canada-US borders. On March 1, 2003 the Department of Homeland Security through the Directorate of Boarder and Transportation Security, took responsibility for securing our nation’s borders and transportation system, which straddle 350 official ports of entry and connect our homeland to the rest of the world.
On December 17, 2004, President Bush signed into effect a 600 page Intelligence Reform and Terrorism prevention Act which had passed overwhelmingly by Congress and the House. This legislation was introduced into Congress in response to a report from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States during 9/11. The recommendation by this committee have 41 parts, each to create a national intelligence director to oversee the government is 15 intelligence agencies. This legislation stalled and there are many concerns about this portion of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. Especially the one where they wanted one person to be over the whole intelligence field.
Judge Posner criticize the idea of a national intelligence czar mainly on the ground that it would not solve the problems of our intelligence apparatus, but he omitted one possible big concern about the creation of this new position. In August before the IRTPA was passed, Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commented on the 9/11 Commission’s Report and recommendations and specific criticism the commission’s recommendation to centralize authority over federal governments multiple intelligence operation in a single person. Judge Posner expressed his views that the absence of a single head of intelligence was not the reason that information was a put together. Judge Posner argued that the reason why the information relating to the terrorist 9/11 plans were not together, because all the dots are not connected.
Judge Posner indicated that centralization would probably extend the time it takes for intelligence analysts to reach the president, reduce the diversity and help competition in assembling and analyzing intelligence information and deprive the president of alternative interpretations of ambiguous and incomplete data. The seventh circuit court judge also predicted conflict between the new national head of intelligence at the cabinet officials concerned with intelligence. Judge Posner realize that this new head would be in major conflict with, the United States Attorney General, United States Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s, and Homeland Security, and the National Security Adviser. Judge Posner had a very legitimate criticism, of putting so one else over this new office. In my view I believe it would cause major conflicts, intelligence would be compromise is and on national security would be threatened.
References
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning? Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.
SAMPLE RESPONSE 4
Question 7 Page 380
Yes I would proceed. But I would review all the conditions of 501.3 to ensure my client’s status as defined is correct. First, I would review the evidence that categorize my client as a substantial risk and how his communication or contact with others could result in death or serious bodily injury to others. I would review the procedures for monitoring and stated in 501.3 “to the extent determined to be reasonable necessary for the purpose of deterring future acts of violence or terrorism”. This is very important in that excessive monitoring if not justified could destroy attorney-client privilege. I would review any special restrictions to insure they are necessary and require justifications. Lastly, insure that the 501.3 conditions will allow a fair trail for my client. The protections of the Sixth and Fourth Amendments must be insured to a level that would provide a fair trail. All these conditions must be review before I would proceed.
Question 2 Page 436
As a result of Supreme Court decisions in June 2004 (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld), the U.S. Government on July 7, 2004, established the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) process at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The CSRT process supplements the Department of Defense’s already existing screening procedures and provides an opportunity for detainees to contest their designation as enemy combatants, and thereby the basis for their detention. This decision is consistent with the Supreme Court guidance applicable to situations involving U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court has held that the habeas review traditionally allowed in the context of military tribunals does not determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, nor does it examine the adequacy of the evidence. The implications are clear that detainees are allowed to some extent of due process and this can directly affect how detainees are processed, and how long detainees are detained with habeas corpus.
Question 2 Page 511
The issue of security clearance for council is not a bad idea and has been used United State v. Smith, 899 F.2d 564 (6th Cir. 1990). The problem is that the Justice Department becomes both the judge and the jury. The same department that is determining if council is acceptable for security clearance is the department that is building the case against the defendant. The answer to this is simple. An independent committee, contractor, or agency should have the ability to check security clearances for legal council. The Justice Department doe not have to perform the security checks. A private contractor or an agency not associated with the Justice Department can perform these security clearances without comprising national security. This will allow fair and impartial review of legal council for security clearances and insure that there is not even an appearance of conflict of interest in the process. This would protect a client’s right to council as stated in the Sixth Amendment. Every effort should be made to protect national security, but also allow a fair and impartial trial for a defendant.
References
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning? Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.
SAMPLE RESPONSE 5
Question 2-1
Two parties which are involved in an arbitration, “in which an arbitrator (a neutral third party or panel of experts) hears a dispute and renders a decision,” can decide if this decision will be legally binding or nonbinding (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.43). These two parties give the arbitrator the agreed upon power. If they agree upon a legally binding contract, then the arbitrator’s decision will be final. The book states that “usually, the parties in arbitration agree that the third party’s decision will be legally binding” (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.43). As a result, a party cannot complain if the decision is not in its favor because both parties have given the arbitrator’s decision “the force of law and [this decision is] binding on the parties involved” (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.49).
The book also states that “in some respects, formal arbitration resembles a trial” and the arbitrator’s decision is called an award (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.43). In such a formal arbitration, “the parties may appeal an arbitrator’s decision” (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.43). However, the book clearly states that such an “award, will be set aside only if the arbitrator’s conduct of ‘bad faith’ substantially prejudiced the rights of one of the parties, or if the arbitrator exceeded her or his powers” (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.43). Thus such an appeal is seldom successful.
I think everyone who agrees to a legally binding decision will know that once the decision is made, it is final. Therefore, it is important that the two parties write the agreement, whether it is legally binding or nonbinding, on paper so that none of them can try to reverse the agreement by saying it was different.
Reference
Clarkson, K. W., Miller R.L., Jentz, G. A., & Cross, F. B. (2006). West’s Business Law Text and Cases: Legal, Ethical, International, and E-Commerce Environment (10th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson.
Question 3-5
In my opinion, federal law, which “prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified person with a disability when that person could be accommodated without too much difficulty,” should not apply to the jury selection process (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.74). I think parties should not be prohibited during voir dire to exclude blind persons from serving as jurors, because these blind persons will not be able to see important evidence, which will be used to reach a verdict. No matter how many or how difficult accommodations will be made for a blind person, he or she will still not be able to see any evidence or non verbal language, such as facial expressions. Therefore, there are no “reasonable accommodations” that can be made to allow a blind person to serve as a juror (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.74). This leads to the conclusion that the exclusion of people with physical or mental disabilities, such as blind people, is not discriminatory, because these people are not qualified to be jurors. Hence, even if federal law would apply to the jury selection process, the exclusion of blind people would not violate it.
It would be something different if a party challenges a juror “for cause – that is, provide a reason why an individual should not be sworn in as juror,” such as for discriminatory challenges based on racial criteria or gender (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.64). This is forbidden because it is truly discriminatory. It would be the same for peremptory challenges. However, it would be more difficult to prove that these challenges are discriminatory because a party does not have to provide “any reason for excluding” prospective jurors (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross, 2006, p.64).
If I would be a blind person, I would not even want to be a juror, because I know that the disability to see will hinder me to reach a fair decision. As a result, I would ask the judge to be excused. I think that many people feel the same way and do not want to be a reason for an unfair verdict.
References
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning? Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.
SAMPLE 6 RESPONSE
PLEASE SELECT 1 (ONE) END OF CHAPTER QUESTION FROM CHAPTER 7. RESPOND TO THE QUESTION IN DEPTH. Choose a question that you did not choose throughout the term for the discussion Board questions. Apply them to your real life experiences, society or how you may act in that case. Please go in depth with responses.
Case 7-5
I feel Baldwin would be in the class of persons protected by the regulation. And I also feel GTE South, Inc. placement of the telephone booth constitutes negligence per se. Baldwin will be able to “prove that (1) the statute clearly sets out what standard of conduct is expected, when and where it is expected, and of whom it is expected; (2) that he or she is in the class of intended to be protected by the statute; and (3) that the statute was designed to prevent they type of injury that he or she suffered.” (Clarkson, Miller Jentz, & Cross p. 148) GTE’s negligence per se occurred because it violated a safety regulation “set forth by the North Carolina Department of Transportation about placement of telephone booths within public rights-of-way.” (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross p. 151) “Despite this regulation GTE South placed a booth in the right-of-way near the intersection of Hillsborough and Sparger Roads in Durham County.” (Clarkson, Miller, Jentz, & Cross p. 151) The Department of Transportation gets a tremendous amount of information on accidents and where they are more likely to occur and I feel this was one of the reasons they instituted the regulation not to place telephone booths within public rights-of-way. “The accident occurred in 1988 on Hillsborough Road in Durham. The phone booth the caller was using was 25 feet from the edge of road – well within the 50-feet right-of-way required by the Department of Transportation.” (Lawyers Weekly, 1994) GTE South tried to argue that Baldwin was not in the protected class so the suit should not proceed but the Supreme Court felt differently. “By expressly prohibiting phone booths in highway rights-of-way, the regulation impliedly protected pedestrians, Justice Whichard said.” (Lawyers Weekly, 1994)
“The DOT’s concerns in enacting this regulation, however, necessarily included more than the safety of motorists because the regulation controls the placement of phone booths within rights-of-way which often encompass more than the area occupied by the road used by motorists. Logic dictates that the purpose of this regulation was to protect the safety of the motorist who might leave the road and strike the booth while simultaneously protecting the pedestrian who might be using the booth.” (Lawyers Weekly, 1994)
References
Moscowitz, J., Tedlie, E., Elissa S. & Acree, M. (2008). Positive affect uniquely predicts
lower risk of mortality in people with diabetes. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S73-S82.
Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of Moral Motivation from Childhood to Early
Adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36(4), 399-414.
Newsom, J. & Mahan, T.L. (2008). Stable negative social exchanges and health. Health
Psychology, 27(1), 78-86.
O’Brien, G. (n.d.). What are the principles of adult learning? Retrieved January
21, 2007, from http://southernhealth.org.au/cpme/articles/adult_learning.htm
Santesso, D. & Segalowitz, S. (2008). Developmental differences in error-related
ERPs in middle- to late-adolescent males. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 205-217.
Weingart, L. & Brett, J. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(6), 994-1010.
Wilson, D.K. (2008). Commentary for Health Psychology special issue: Theoretical
advances in diet and physical activity interventions. Health Psychology, 27(1, Suppl), S1-S2.