In the matter of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (USSC, 1973), Gerald Scarpelli was originally convicted of armed robbery for an incident that occurred in Wisconsin in 1963. In 1965, Scarpelli was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in the State of Wisconsin (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, n.d.). After serving a brief incarceration, Scarpelli had his sentence reduced to seven years probation, was released from prison, and later moved to Illinois with the permission of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. After becoming a resident of Illinois, Scarpelli was then supervised by the Adult Probation Department of Illinois. Shortly after, Scarpelli was subsequently caught committing the act of burglary in the State of Illinois. Though Scarpelli states that his admission of guilt for participation in the burglary was given under duress, he was confined for the new charge (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, n.d.). Upon receiving the new criminal charge in Illinois, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections immediately revoked …show more content…
Scarpelli had filed the writ based upon an allegation of a denial of his right to due process under the Constitution (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, n.d.). The district court agreed that revoking Scarpelli’s probation without a hearing was in fact a denial of his due process right. John Gagnon, Warden of the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, appealed this decision all the way to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States, where the district court’s ruling was upheld each time. Upon reaching the United States Supreme Court, there were two questions at hand: Is a previously sentenced probationer entitled to a hearing when their probation is revoked and is that individual entitled to representation by an attorney for the hearing? (Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
Westover ended up signing papers confessing both to the felony charge in California and both robberies in Kansas, which an agent had been getting the papers ready during the interrogations. When he went to court his confessions were also presented to the judge. After the judge had reviewed the confessions he ruled him guilty and Westover was charged 15 years in prison for each
Name and Citation: UNITED STATES v. LETTERLOUGH 63 F.3d 332 (1995) Facts: An acquaintance of the defendant, Vincent Jay Letterlough, purchased a firearm without knowledge that Letterlough was a convicted felon. Upon learning that Letterlough was a felon, she turned herself into the police. Following her confession, Letterlough was charged with felony possession of a firearm in which he pled guilty. Because of a number of drug convictions, the Probation Officer during sentencing recommended considering Letterlough an Armed Career Criminal under the ACCA’s statutory sentencing enhancement.
After going through the state appellate court and the state supreme court Brandenburg appealed to the Supreme Court. 3. Questions of the Case Did the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Statute violate Clarence Brandenburg’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights? 4.
Case Analysis In the court case, Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 US. 357 (1998), the defendant was not allowed to obtain any weapons while on parole. In 1983, Scott pleaded ‘nolo contendere’, which means that he doesn’t wish to contend or agree to the guilty charge, to third degree murder. He was sentenced ten to twenty years to prison.
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
He was sentenced to life in jail without the shot of parole in addition to
In 1961 the Florida Supreme Court denied Clarence Gideon’s request for an appointed lawyer during his trial. Gideon was poor and could not afford a lawyer and he was uneducated so he could not properly defend himself. His case applies to the Sixth Amendment which guarantees that the accused has the right to an attorney if they want one, and depriving someone’s right to counsel is a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Despite his criminal background, Clarence Gideon’s appeal to the United States Supreme Court in 1963 resulted in the expansion of the right to counsel, an important element of due process, for all Americans.
After two-and-a-half hours of being interrogated by the FBI agents, Westover signed separate confessions for each of the two robberies in California. These statements were used as evidence against Westover at trial leading up to his conviction of the California robberies and sentencing to 15 years in prison for each of the two robberies. In this case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
Have you if wonder how much freedom do you really have as a person, What if I told you that someone could in this age and day could be pick up by the law enforcement and taken to a mentally hospital and involuntary confined against your will, well on October and November of 1971, it really happened to Alberta Lessard under the Wisconsin State Mental Health Act, Wis.Stat. § 51.001 et seq. Terms will be used such as Civil Commitment, involuntary hospitalization Parens Partriae and Police Power, understand these terms will help you to understand your rights. On October 29, 1971 James D. Mejchar and Jack Schneider who are police officers with Wisconsin police Department pick up Alberta Lessard in front of her home in West Allis Wisconsin where
The book, Gideon's Trumpet, by Anthony Lewis was published in 1964 by Random House Publishing in New York, NY. Anthony Lewis is a columnist for the New York Times. After covering the Supreme Court and the Justice Department as a member of the Times Washington Bureau, Mr. Lewis served as the Chief London Correspondent for the Times. Prior to these significant life achievements, Mr. Lewis won a Pulitzer Prize for national correspondence and the Heywood Broun Award while working for the Washington Daily News. Again, in 1963, Anthony Lewis won a second Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the Supreme Court.
Also, it could be said that the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza opened the floodgates and its decision helped future case where it concerned human rights especially section 3 of Human Rights Act 1998. For instance, in the case of Nutting v Southern Housing Group Ltd , the claimant and the defendant formed a homosexual relationship. However, their relationship was volatile and Mr Roberts stated that it has ended. Then he died and the association brought possession proceedings against the defendant, which he defended on the ground that he was entitled to succeed to the tenancy under Housing Act 1988, s.17. The court set out the test to be applied when determining whether a person applying to succeed to an assured tenancy had been the deceased tenant's "spouse".
Anthony Lewis’ narrative in Gideon’s Trumpet has served as one of the most important law related occurrences. The nonfiction book is written in the third person perspective in order to provide a detailed and thorough overview of the law practices during the time of the case. The book specially focuses on the Supreme Court’s thought of governing leading up to the case, Gideon vs Wainwright, as well as the case itself. The case involves Clarence Gideon’s fight for his right to have an attorney in order to defend him in court. This written recollection has given an overlying theme to the entire book: the right to justice.
Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.
Garrity came about in July of 1962, in Garrity V. New Jersey. Garrity The Attorney General investigated reports of “ticket fixing” in the Bellmawr Township in New Jersey. During the investigation six employees came under investigation. Three police officers from Barrington, a court clerk, an officer from Bellmawr, and Chief Edward Garrity.
Monday 5 January, Njaga Jagne had been arrested as he got off a plane at Dulles international airport near Washington DC. He was charged with organising a failed attempt to overthrow Yahya Jammeh, the military ruler of Gambia. Gambia is a slender riverine nation of fewer than 2 million people. had served with the US army, had already confessed to US investigators, telling them he was one of a small group of men from the diaspora who had taken part in a botched nighttime attack in December on Jammeh’s residence. The strange thing is that the alleged coup plotters were middle-aged immigrants, who had made good lives for themselves in America over the course of decades, with careers, wives, children, savings, suburban houses, and citizenship.