Dickens V. Johnson Case Summary

Analysis – The clear decision of the court was that they did not want anything that

The court case Roper vs Simmons was one of the most influential Supreme Court cases that dealt with the issue of whether or not juveniles should receive the death penalty if they were under the age of 18 at the time they committed the crime. In this case, Simmons and a group of his friends planned to commit a burglary and a murder. On the night of the crime, “Simmons and his two friends entered the home of Shirley Crook. Simmons recognized Crook from a car accident they were involved in before; he “later admitted to the police that “this confirmed his resolve to murder her.” Simmons and his friends tied Crook up and put her into the truck of her car. Then the defendants took her to a bridge and threw her off where she drowned. The day following the crime, the police came and arrested Simmons and his friends and charged them with burglary, kidnaping, stealing, and murder in the first degree.” (Roper v Simmons-No. 03–633. Supreme Court of Missouri. 1 Mar. 2005. Print.). The jury found Simmons guilty and sentenced him to

The case of R. V. Askov began in November 1983 when Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, were charged with conspiracy to commit extortion against Peter Belmont. On top of Extortion they had multiple existing firearm charges to which they severed 6 months in prison for these offences, and were initially denied bail until May 7th, 1984. After being released, their preliminary hearing for the extortion charge was set in early July 1984. The hearing wasn’t completed until September 1984. The actual trial was then set for the first date available, in October 1985, but in turn got delayed until September 1986 2 years later. When the trial began the accused argued that the 2 year period was sufficient grounds to stay the trial for unreasonable delay,

In conclusion, after contemplating the cases’ distinctive historical background, the sharply divided arguments that prompted the courts’ ruling, and the wide-reaching impact of that ruling, it is evident that this case was a turning point in American history. Despite differing opinions, the Supreme Court stuck to the Constitution in their decision that the government is not responsible for protecting children from their

In Barbara Kingsolver’s novel The Bean Trees, Taylor represents a bildungsroman character. A bildungsroman story is a coming of age story that consists of four stages. In the first stage of a bildungsroman character’s journey, she experiences a loss or painful experience that drives her to start a new life. The character goes through a baptismal rite in the second stage, which always involves water. The character endures many difficult trials in the third stage, but ends up gaining a new insight about life in the fourth stage. Taylor’s journey in the Bean Trees has all four of these stages, making her a bildungsroman character. Although Taylor’s desire for independence begins her journey, she eventually realizes people need a network

This case examines the responsibility that a school district has to establish a program that deals with the various language issues of non-English speaking students. Kinney Lau and other non-English speaking students brought forth a lawsuit trying to force the San Francisco Unifed School District (SFUSD) to provide support for all non-English-speaking Chinese students with a bilingual education program so they could proficiently learn English. The case also attaches “strings” to school districts that receive federal financial assiatance.

Christopher Simmons was a seventeen year old juvenile from Missouri whom in 1993 along with two of his friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, planned to rob and murder Shirley Crook in her home (Roper v. Simmons, 2004). On the night the crime was to be committed, Tessmer pulled out of the plan, and Simmons and Benjamin would continue on as planned. The two broke into the Ms. Crook’s home, robbed her, tied her up, covered up her eyes, then drove her to a state park and threw her off a bridge. During the trial, evidence, videotaped reenactment and testimony outlining the premeditated plan, allowed for the jury to easily convict Simmons of the crime. Even though Simmons had no previous criminal record and was a minor at the time the crime was committed,

Colin Newmark was diagnosed with cancer. The cancer was life threatening. His parents were Christian Scientists and refused to consent for chemotherapy for Colin. Their refusal was protected under State Law as it exempted parents from the neglect and abuse statutes if the refusal was supported by medical reasons. The plaintiff, Child Protective Services petitioned to continue treatment for Colin.

Earl versus the Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 2002 where high school students and their parents disliked the action of The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy taking place in an Oklahoma School District. This policy required all middle and high school students who wanted to participate in any extracurricular activity like athletics, to take a mandatory urinary test for drugs before taking part in that activity. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Specifically two Tecumseh High School students and their parents complained and brought suit, they believed this practice violated

The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable

Clarence Earl Gideon was not someone you would expect to be a hero. According to www.uscourts.gov, he left school after the 8th grade and decided to run away from home. “He was mostly a drifter, spending time in and out of prison for nonviolent crimes,” their website reads. When he was 51 years old, he was accused of breaking into a bar in Florida and arrested. He was too poor to afford a lawyer, so when he got to court, he asked the judge to appoint him one, according to his rights under the Sixth Amendment. The judge refused, and he had to represent himself. “He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution 's witnesses, brought witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing

On February 26, 1986, a female student, whom the court records refer to as C.R., at Morton East High School in Illinois brought a note to her school psychologist, Dr. Rosario C. Pesce. The note informed the plaintiff that C.R.’s male friend (“J.D”) was struggling with shame, confusion, and suicidal thoughts because a male teacher at Morton East High School allegedly abused J.D. sexually. After hearing this, Dr. Pesce gave C.R. a professional therapist’s contact information to pass along to J.D., and later that day, J.D. chose to come see Dr. Pesce in his office to discuss his confusion and suicidal thoughts (“Dr. Rosario”).

On November 21, 1973, Troy Leon Gregg and his companion robbed and murdered Fred Edward Simmons and Bob Durwood Moore, two innocent people who were giving them rides. Gregg was convicted for his actions and was given the death penalty. He argued that the sentence was violating his eighth amendment which is “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (U.S. Const. amend.VIII.) The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the eighth amendment and was constitutional. This brings up the question “Was the case properly determined by the Supreme Court or should it be Congress to decide?”

The case involves a 12 year old child named Griffin Grimbly who told the teacher that he was beaten with a clothesline by his father Mr.Gimli. In court, the Mr.Gimli argued that he was devoted to Christian and was following the Biblical injunction on child rearing, “Spare the rod and spoil the child”, as well as arguing that s 43 of the criminal code gives parents the right to use “reasonable force” in disciplining their children.

The discretion of the case was significant in the regard of the defense, which countered some contradicted evidences. The evidences from the trial and the hearing preliminaries have revealed that the children were coached. The testimony showed lack of credibility on the issues and showing the significance of the discretion on the defense. McMartin told his attorney that he did not do it and his attorney used his discretion and believed him.