The case of People v. Smith in the Supreme Court of Michigan was a landmark case for the state. With the court determining its holdings on the lower trial courts sentencing guidelines and practices concerning the use of juvenile criminal records in adult criminal cases (People v. Smith, 437 Mich. 293 (1991)). The State of Michigan did file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Michigan concerning the decision by the Lower Court of Appeals in the case of Ricky Smith. The lower court did uphold the conviction of Smith, but did overturn his sentence and remanded him to a new sentencing hearing. The court viewed the use of his juvenile criminal record to violate Michigan state law.
Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”
In the case of People v. Hollins, which involved a 32 year old man having consensual sex with a 17 year old girl was not necessarily violating the statutory rape law; he was charged with child pornography due to the fact that he had filmed the encounter and under Illinois statute, which defines child pornography as exploitation of a minor under 18. In my mindset, I do not believe that he would have the right to any due process or equal protection arguments. My opinion stems from this because due process in short, is defined as arrests and trials meeting minimum standards of fairness and upholding laws to ensure they do not violate constitutional rights. The man being charged however was never violated of his constitutional rights because
In 2005 the Roper v. Simmons case went down in history as a landmark decision creating the pretext that no persons under the age of 18 can be sentenced to capital punishment. Simmons was sentenced to the death penalty at the missouri supreme court after planning a kidnapping and murder on his neighbor Shirley Crook. Evidence was shown that this was premeditated by witnesses Charlie Benjamin and John tessmer whom of which Simmons confided his plans within. All Appeals of this case wernt heard until 2002 when the missouri supreme court passed simmons's execution due to the ruling of a similar case Atkins vs virginia.
On November 13, 1963, 17-year-old African American Henry Montgomery shot and killed a Caucasian Sheriff Deputy named Charles Hurt in a park in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. This came to be known as Montgomery v. Louisiana. At Montgomery’s trial, a jury convicted him of murder and he was sentenced to death. In January 1966, the Louisiana Supreme Court annulled this ruling after finding that Montgomery did not receive a fair trial due to public prejudice. The jury then returned a verdict of “guilty without capital punishment” which is an automatic sentence of life without the possibility of parole (Montgomery).
Case: Carl M. Miles, et al., vs City council of Augusta, Georgia, et al. 710 F.2d 1542 Facts: In 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Miles were conducting an activity where they utilized a kitten’s linguistic ability for a course of speech therapy which enabled them to obtain moneys from passersby in the City of Augusta, Georgia. After being reported to the police, Mr. and Mrs. Miles were told they would have to purchase a $50 business license for a business and the activity would be taxable in accordance with City of Augusta’s Business License Ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Miles eventually challenged the constitutionality of the Business License Ordinance enacted by City of Augusta, Georgia. Procedural History: Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Miles brought the case to
One major court decision during Coolidge’s presidency was Gitlow v. New York. This case started in 1919 when Benjamin Gitlow was arrested in New York for criminal anarchy. This state law made advocating the overthrow of the government by force illegal. Gitlow was arrested for the distribution of a “left-wing manifesto” that encouraged the overthrow of the government by any means necessary. During his trial, Gitlow argued freedom of speech clause of the first amendment and that since no violence actually ensued as a result of this publication, he should not be convicted.
To: Mr. Rundell From: Jordan Phoenix and Kristen Mann Re: Philip Marcus: examination of remains. Case # 20161021-01 Introduction: On the 21st day of October 2016, at approximately 11:38 the remains of Philip Marcus were exhumed. M.E Rundell presented the remains to the lab assistants Jordan Phoenix and Kristen Mann . M.E Rundell and his team began the investigation ordered by the Grand Jury into the death of the male.
On 7/13/15 worker made an unannounced visit to the residence of Mr. Lawson Lovett, for the purpose of monitoring the situation and gathering information. During today 's home visit, Mr. Bobby Lovett informed worker he did not want to fill out VA NH application because he had done that before and Mr. Lawson Lovett was denied due to him registered as a sex offender. Mr. Bobby Lovett provided worker with documentation. The documentation stated the crime happened in Biloxi Mississippi 4/28/1993. According to Mr. Bobby Lovett, Mr. Lawson Lovett returned to Alabama in 1998 or 1999.
The procedurals rights for The Fourth Amendment is freedom from unreasonable search and seizures without warrant or probable cause, a judge sign warrants only if it stipulates that the concerning area or material articles and particular persons are seized. Searches are the intrusion into an individual home, business, or property by law enforcement officers to prove with evidence the crime committed. A seizure is when investigators conduct a search of a person's property and confiscate any significant evidence to the crime in violation of the criminal law (Bohm & Haley, 2011). There are two kinds of search and seized warrants the Fourth Amendment permits according to the Supreme Court, those made without or with a warrant. A warrant
According to case law, a person is allowed to use “reasonable force” to protect his property but it cannot be force that will take someone’s life or inflict injury. In the case of Tony Roberts, he is not allowed to use force against Peter Christopher, the man stealing his sports car, according to the case law of “Prosser on Torts, Third Edition”. The law states that “the law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property, it is the accepted rule that there is NO privilege to use any force calculated to cause a death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land, unless there is a threat to the defendant's personal safety as to justify a self defense situation.” Tony was not in any danger when Peter was stealing his car; he never infringed any harm on Tony in order for him to act on self defense. Also, according to the Castle Doctrine, you must be in your home or at your place of business in order to use “deadly force” upon a Peter.