With the aids from her mother and a volunteer lawyer, Sabrina prepared an appeal with the Supreme Court of Mississippi on several bases two years later. On August 26th, 1992, the Supreme Court of Mississippi lifted the sanction for Sabrina Butler and reversed her verdicts, in which the court voiced concerns that the prosecution has ignore the possibility that her case was purely an accident versus a premeditated
In another way, the court case of Mallory v. Hogan is the right against self-incrimination in the fifth Amendment. William Mallory was found guilty and sentenced to jail with a fine. But, it was suspended and the court placed him on two years probation. However, within the time period of the probation, the Superior Court "appointed referee ordered Malloy to testify about gambling and other criminal activities in Hartford County." Mallory refused to incriminate himself and he was imprison for contempt the court and held until he willing to confess himself.
The United States Supreme Court in the Packingham v. North Carolina first amendment case has ruled in favor of Lester Gerard Packingham. The state from now on may not bar social media access to registered sex offenders. The case’s build up dates back to 2002 when 21 year old college student Lester G. Packingham had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old girl. For involvement with a minor he received a 10-12 month sentence, but having never met problems with the law, the judge required him to go on a 24 month probation and register as a sex offender. Five years had passed and in 2008 North Carolina forbid any person on the sex offender list to use any type of social media.
Jerry Douglas Mempa pleaded guilty to joyriding, and had been placed on probation for two years and the imposition of his sentence was deferred. Four months later, the county prosecutor moved to withdraw Mempa’s probation based on his participation in a burglary (Oyez,2017). Mempa petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus and claimed that he was denied his right to counsel during the proceedings revoking his probation. The Washington Supreme Court denied his petition. Counsel also assists the defendant in asserting his rights, such as the right to appeal, at the deferred sentencing stage
Suttles court case. “[Nolan]Breedlove led to the introduction of the first poll tax constitutional amendment in 1939 and to efforts to abolish the poll tax through State Action”(thefreedictionary.com). After Nolan Breedlove a twenty-eight year old man who was white tries to vote but was denied do to his inability to pay the poll tax. Nolan decided to sue the state of Georgia arguing that poll taxes were unconstitutional due to the fourteenth amendment which states equal protection for all groups. However the Supreme Court ruled the tax still constitutional by itself.
Unfortunately the Blow family felt that they could no longer financially support Dred through another trial. Alexander Field agreed to represent Dred’s lawyer at no cost, he suggested that the lawsuit should be heard in the Federal courts because Dred Scott and Irene Emerson resided in different states. During this time John Stanford owned the Scotts he was Irene Emerson’s brother. Alexander Fields main reason in supporting Dred Scott was to have the Supreme Court answer the questions of if residing in a free state or territory meant that the slave could be free permanently and if black people have the right to be citizens. Alexander Fields felt that being of African descent did not take away the citizenship or the right to
As each group represents one of two opposing sides in the Civil War free state party is the United States of America or the Union while the border ruffians is the Confederate States of America. The free state party wanted slaves to be free through justified means like religion from Great Awakening and Second Great Awakening were many preached that all humans are created equal and since everyone is on equal terms then no one should enslave another person (Hahn 10/11). Other then religion a lot of European countries already banned slavery within their empires. So to many Americans it would seem as barbaric if a majority of the developed world has gotten rid of something altogether while the land of the free still has something that even opposes what is written in the constitution “all men are created equal”. Like with the caning of Sumner where Preston Brooks used his cane to beat up Charles Sumner on the senate floor because Sumner was insulting the way of life of the south (Hahn 11/8).
Another incident involving slavery that contributed greatly on the conflict between the north and the southern states was the DRED SCOTT DECISION. The Dred Scott decision is described by (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford) as “A landmark decision by the United States supreme court, in which the court ruled that African Americans, whether enslaved or not, could not be first class American citizens and therefore had no right to sue in Federal court and that the Federal governments had no power to regulate slavery. Dred Scott was an African American slave, taken by his master from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then the free state of Wisconsin. The master was moved back to Missouri, the slave state and he took Scott with him and later on the master died. The question at hand was should he be set free?
The equality act holds the evidence of allowing everyone to be considered and given permission to be equal and have rights. But because of the rules against marriage between two different people not in the same race, the act is not being followed and being held back from these people and their natural born rights. Mildred Loving and her white husband Richard Loving got married in Washington since miscegenation laws didn’t allow them to marry in Virginia, they came back to their home and arrested later in the middle of the night because they were living together and because they were together and married they got jailed for a year and banished from Virginia for twenty five years. These laws made them guilty for just loving each other and living together. Miscegenation laws take away their rights to do all of those things and they make the white man unequal to the colored person.
In document C we can see this is evident where it states “No negro or freedmen shall be allowed to come within the limits of the town of Opelousas without special permission of his employers. Whoever breaks this law will go to jail and work for two days on the public streets, or pay a fine of five dollars.” They wanted to keep the former slaves down even after they were freed. To add more fuel to the fire, another reason why reconstruction is a failure is because of the information that we can find in document G. Abram Colby a former slave who was elected to the Georgia
When a house finally sold to them, 30 out of the 39 current house owners in the neighborhood signed a contract that stated no home could be sold to an "negro" (Shelley vs. Kraemer) family for the next 50 years. In the case, the ruling went in favor of the Shelley 's, giving them their home back. In addition, the whole covenant was ruled over by the owner of the neighborhood, who did not realize that the people buying the house were free blacks until the day of the purchase. Not to mention the multiple angry residents who made the contract in the first place. Shelley v. Kraemer was the first real freedom for African-Americans, however, it took a little over 90 years (the Dred Scott decision was 91 years before this case) for freedom of blacks to be fully recognized.
Korematsu got to stay in his home for 2 years before finally the government noticed and it was to late, for Korematsu had already filed the lawsuit. Considering this, why did the supreme court even take the case? Why would they take this case if they had already ruled what was happening constitutional? Did they want to see if they were right with allowing this to happen? All I know is the Supreme Court had to take the case, for it dealt with the 5th and 14th amendments.
Irene Emerson that Dred Scott and his family were free. On March 22, 1852 the Missouri Supreme Court reversed it. Dred Scott and his attorneys went to the Federal Court, the United States Supreme Court. On March 6, 1857 the court said that the Scott family would stay slaves. Chief Justice Roger Taney said that because the Scott’s were African Americans they were not citizens of the United States and could not sue for their freedom.
Williams vs. North Carolina (1942) The Williams v. North Carolina case is a Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the federal government determines divorce and marriage statuses between state lines. It casted doubt over the validity of thousands of interstate divorces. Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix, who were both married, moved to Nevada for six weeks to become citizens of the state, and filed for divorce from their spouses. Their spouses, Carrie Wyke and Thomas Hendrix, were unaware that the divorces were being filed. Once the divorces were final, Mr. Williams and Ms. Hendrix married and then moved back to North Carolina.
Could you imagine being moved from your home and march hundreds of miles at gunpoint! It sounds like a nightmare but it was a reality for many innocent people they were forced to move to a whole different place and try to survive. In 1820 the treaty of doak 's stand was one of the very first removal of native and land. Andrew jackson gave a talk /speech to the choctaw proposed land exchange for land in the mississippi for land in arkansas but the choctaw nation did not want to sign the treaty but jackson forced the natives to sign jackson was not yet president. In 1828 andrew jackson ran for the presidential race and he won now things would change in america.