Case Brief Title & Citation: 1. Kent V United States 2. 383 U.S. 541 (1966) The Facts: The police detained and questioned 16-year old Morris A. Kent Jr., in connection with several incidents involving theft by force and rape. After admitting to having some involvement, the juvenile court canceled its legal control, allowing the court to try Kent as an adult. Kent was accused of theft in district court. Moving to dismiss the indictment, due to the Juvenile court not conducting an appropriate way of questioning before giving up jurisdiction, as demanded by the Juvenile Court Act. A jury found him guilty and then they sentenced Kent to serve 30-90 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed and it was noted that there was no reason that the Juvenile Court judge gave for the waiver. Issue: Kent was unaware of his case's transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court of D.C. to the state's regular district court. Was the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction valid? Would the individual transferred to the adult court still have rights that were applicable in juvenile court? Did the juvenile court conduct a full investigation for Kent? Important information might have been revealed had an investigation been performed. And was Kent’s 14th Amendment right under the due process clause. Kent …show more content…
If the waiver was improper, the conviction was sent back to the court. If it was proper, then the act of being found guilty of a crime was sustained. Kent's lawyer filed the motion for the juvenile court judge to keep legal control over Kent's case to preserve treatment and rehabilitation he'd been on for the past two years. It was assumed that a hearing would be executed in order for Kent's lawyer to argue for his client, but NO HEARING WAS
Laura Richart S. DioGuardi Criminal Law & Procedure 22 September 2016 CJ2300 Assignment 1: Case Brief Case: Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) Procedural History: Fred Korematsu was a Japanese- American who was sent to an internment camp following the enactment of Executive Order 9066 in 1942. This executive order required that all Japanese- Americans, some Italian- Americans, and some Jewish refugees be taken from their homes and placed in internment camps around the United States, with many being on the West Coast. This was in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and was intended to prevent supposed espionage. Korematsu refused to transfer from the original camp in Manzanar, CA that he was placed in and was arrested and
Thank you for providing a great example of an institution’s response to the breach of a coach’s contract. After researching the case of Kent State v. Ford, it was apparent that the terms of Ford’s agreement were not interpreted by the coach in the same manner in which the terms were written by the institution. Ford is quoted as stating that the liquidated damages clause was not enforceable (Farkas, 2015). Whereas liquated damages are defined as such: The purpose of a liquidated damages clause is to ensure that the failure of one party to follow the contract does not unfairly hurt the other and the amount agreed to must be a reasonable estimate of any potential damage a breach of contract might cause (faircontracts.org, n.d.).
Lindsay Weeks Legal Brief 1. Title and Citation Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998) 2. Facts of the Case This case dealt with the introduction of the Line Item Veto Act which merged two primary acts that caused immense controversy among Congress. The first provision “gave the president the power to rescind various expenditures, it established a check on his ability to do so”.
The verdict was not found to be guilty with the counts of rape due to reason of insanity. Morris Kent was sentenced 30 to 90 years in prison and also some time in Saint Elizabeth's Hospital. Kent’s lawyer believed that the investigation was not thoroughly completed and that the indictment should be dismissed. Due to the findings of Kent’s mental issues they concluded that the waive was inappropriate. He said that Kent was denied his constitutional rights due to the fact he was a minor.
Facts of the Case: (Approximately 200 words) The case to place on March 2, 1801, when William Marbury was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government post created by Congrees during the end of John Adam’s term as President. President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.
Throughout his opinion, Holmes loosely cited the Fourteenth Amendment in his explanation for bringing the men to trial. He uses it to affirm the Supreme Court authority in charging those responsible because it was a violation of federal law. They had to enforce the Court's judgement but failed to protect Johnson from harm. Justice Holmes said, “the sheriff was to be regarded as bailee of the United States…” He failed so, a contempt charge was applicable. He noted the circumstances of Johnson’s case that helped influenced his opinion because he did not have a fair shot.
On September 25th David was arrested for vandalizing property and for burglary. David’s case became so popular in North Carolina because during his trial the state did not provide him with a lawyer. When David appeared in court he was informed of all the charges against him. The court also showed the footage of the defendants house where someone had entered his house to destroy his property and to steal.
5). It was determined trial prejudice due to the gap in time prejudiced his ability to prepare for a defense. 6). The court reversed the court of appeals in their decision to convict Doggett’s drug conspiracy. They also found that indeed his right to a speedy trial had been violated due to the desertion of the government of that 8 and ½ year gap. 7). Due to the government’s long delay relief was granted, and the disregard by the government did trigger judicial
Commonwealth. This is because the minority accepted Allen’s expert witness, Dr. Foley to testify on behalf of the defendant since his therapist had sided with the accusers who was a violation of the defendant’s rights. There was also no clear evidence showing that Allen will probably commit a sexual offense once set free from jail. The Commonwealth was unable to provide clear proof that the defendant was a violent sexual offender as per the provisions made by Code § 37.1-70.1. The judgment from the trial court was well illustrated revealing that the ruling was not based on whose expert opinions were better than the other, in fact, the court acknowledged that both experts were well experienced and convincing.
The Supreme Court stated that “the interviews of the children were highly improper and utilized coercive and unduly suggestive methods.” The prosecution chose not to retry the case, resulting in the charges against Wee Care Nursery School teacher, Kelly Michael, being dropped. As a result, Michaels filed a lawsuit against the prosecution, claiming that they violated her constitutional rights by persuading the children to give false testimony against her. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her case. Regardless, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, stating that the Court’s decision “…leaves victims of egregious prosecutorial misconduct without a
The entire process, from arraignment to sentencing, probably only took about five minutes. The latter, a rare occasion where a defendant chose to self-represent himself, had an entirely different outcome. At the sentencing, the judge once again had offered legal counsel, only to be refused by the defendant. He had been found guilty by the jury after deliberating for just under an hour. Charges included possession of cocaine, resisting arrest without violence, possessions of paraphernalia, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?
Juvenile delinquency is a controversial topic when it comes to fighting for the juvenile’s interest in rehabilitating the juvenile; or, withdrawing from the interest for being a juvenile does not mean a juvenile deserves a slap on the wrist, for a crime done is a crime committed no matter if it is an adult or juvenile. Thus, 1.7 million juveniles under the age of 18 from crimes of loitering to murder are arrested each year (Siegel, Welsh, 2014). Subsequently, in the role of an assistant district attorney in the case of Shatiek being waived to the adult court is plausible because at the age of 15 years old, Shatiek’s is aware of his actions and thoughts. Though, his environment and upbringing are unfortunate, it does not excuse Shatiek to be excused from adult court in the crime committed of killing the victim.