Our Constitution has long required the criminally accused to be tried by their peers. The question before us today is whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment in light of the decision in Ring v. Arizona., 536 U.S. 584 (2002). We hold that it does violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. I On May 2, 1998 there was a murder and robbery at a Popeye’s Fried Chicken restaurant in Pensacola, Florida.
Witt appealed for five reasons, but out of the five, only one was accepted. Witt argued that jurors were forced to step down because they would not automatically vote guilty or not guilty. Even if they believed they could give a fair trial judges can remove the juror, Witt believed jurors who were removed were most likely to vote not guilty and felt his 6th and 14th amendment rights were violated. The appeal was dismissed before the fourth hearing, reason behind that is the judge can dismiss a juror pretrial if he/she believes the juror will use her personal or religious. In this case the juror was dismissed by the by the Supreme Court, the dismissal was correctly done since the juror at no point said that they would vote not guilty.
The United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense. It gives defendants grounds for suit not only when they are not told about a potential deal, but also when an attorney advises against taking a deal.
When a defendant is sued for federal banking or healthcare laws the court is allowed to freeze assets if they have been gained as a result of the crime. In 2012 Sila Luis was charged with health care crimes. A petition for a pre-trial order which would prevent Luis from using her assets was filled. Luis objected claiming that criminal forfeiture of her money would prevent her from hiring a lawyer and is thus in violation of her Sixth Amendment rights. The case was reviewed during the Eleventh Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals for and the restraint of untainted assets which were needed to hire legal defense was proven to be in violation of the Sixth
The dispute was sent to arbitration, where the employee prevailed. The employer demanded the award in court, disputing that it has damages that were either not allowed or for which there was no evidence. The employer alleged that the arbitrator went beyond his authority in shielding the award. The trial court settled the award, and the Court of Appeals held that the employer could not justify its complaints citing the Hall Street opinion. 3.
Within his argument in favor of merging his sentences under the required evidence test, Rivas-Membreno claims that “[w]ith respect to [his] conviction for soliciting witness intimidation, there is simply no evidence to support it.” If the State’s evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction with respect to a particular charge, the proper means of challenging the charge is to make a motion for judgment of acquittal under Md. Rule 4-324. If a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal, or fails to renew his motion at the conclusion of his presentation of evidence, the motion is waived. Md. Rule 4-324(c).
I am writing separately because I do not believe Florida’s sentencing scheme violates Hurst’s sixth amendment. I agree with the dissent that Apprendi and Ring should be overruled in favor of something more in line with Walton and our precedent prior to the new millennium. I concur in the judgment, however, because the jury’s role in Florida’s capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional. Florida does not require unanimity or a feeling of responsibility by the jury in the death sentencing scheme. Also, Florida only requires a simple-majority vote to render its verdict instead of one that is unanimous.
An example of this branch checking another branch June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that section three of the “Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional and that the government can’t discriminate against married L/G couples in deciding federal protection or benefits. The Judicial Branch rightfully checked this Congress law in an attempt to stop governmental prejudice. An instance of the Judicial Branch being checked is 1805 Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached due to expressing his strict federalist ideas in the court and the idea of Judges serving for life irritating Thomas Jefferson; The House of Reps passed the articles of impeachment, and then was acquitted by the Senate. This shows that the other branches have the right (with the right resources) to impeach Supreme Court justices if they step out of
When people are suspects under the law, they are entitled to their Miranda rights. A persons Miranda rights entitle them to remain silent, have an attorney present, have an attorney appointed to them if they cannot afford one, and that person is questioned if they understand those rights. It seems that a whopping 80% of suspects waive their Miranda rights. There are no exact reasons, only speculations as to why people waive that right. One that I will focus on is “Why do I need an attorney, if I did not do anything wrong?” If a person choses to waive their rights, they will not have the legal consultation of an attorney to help guide them through the interrogation process.
It is generally the responsibility of the judge to keep the jury informed about what is the relevant law while It is the role of the jury to assess the evidence and determine the truth behind the case. The jury then has to reach a verdict, after applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. In a criminal case, while the jury may give a verdict of guilt, it is the judge who decides upon appropriate sentences. On the other hand, in civil cases the jury decides on the amount of monetary compensation awarded in damages. The jury is only permitted to appraise evidence that has been brought to light in court itself; it is not authorised to consider evidence in the jury room that, prior, has not been introduced to court.