Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
Heading: - Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 (1984) II. Facts & Procedural History - In September 1976, during the course of ten days, the respondent, Strickland, planned and committed three groups of crimes, including three brutal stabbing murders, torture, kidnapping, severe assaults, attempted murders, attempted extortion, and theft. His two accomplices were arrested, and the respondent surrendered to police.
Rosario”). However, the district court decided that the plaintiff violated the “Confidentiality Act,” which “permits disclosure of confidential communications of a minor between the ages of twelve and eighteen if…the therapist finds disclosure to be in the best interest of the minor” (“Dr. Rosario”). The courts also determined that he violated “The Reporting Act,” which requires school personnel to immediately report suspected child abuse to authorities (“Pesce v. J”). Dr. Pesce also violated the J. Sterling Morton High School District Employment Contract by not promptly reporting the incident, and therefore, putting J.D. in danger. In addition, the courts decided that Pesce’s rights were not violated (“Dr. Rosario”).
Also told the judge, the defense 's argument is not newly discovered evidence and the defense knew of this expert during trial. "There 's nothing new for counsel at the time of trial. As far as presentation at trial, the fact that is may have surprised defense counsel, I think they had time prior to trial to get their expert around. I think they were more so upset because we had the better expert," said Rider-Ulacco. Judge Peter Bradstreet denied the defense request for a new trial.
In the 1963 ruling in Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court ruled that any government state or federal has the duty to disclose to a defendant and his counsel any exculpatory information or evidence in its possession. If the
Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.
Prior to South Carolina v. Gathers (1989) 490 U.S. 805, Booth v. Maryland (1987) 482 U.S. 496, and Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808, victims did not have a voice in criminal cases other than reporting a crime, and testifying at trial. Unlike the offender, victims were relegated to sit in abeyance until the trial was over. In Linda R.S. v. Richard D. (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a crime victim couldn’t coerce a criminal prosecution because "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another" (Donahoe, 1999). This case supported the fact that victims had little to no legal rights within a court of law. The U.S. Constitution recognizes rights for someone who commits a
Dustin Seal, a junior at Powell High School, Knoxville, TN drove his mom’s car to Friday-night football game with his friends who had put a knife in the glove compartment without his information. Over a suspicion of drinking alcohol, school vice principal searched Dustin’s car and found a hunting knife. Being unaware of the knife Dustin got suspended with pending expulsion from Powell high by the principal. Following with several appeal processes School board sided with the school principal on expelling Dustin. His father sued the school board for violation of Dustin’s right under fourth and fourteenth amendments to Federal court ruled in favor of Seal and the case was settled with $30,000 award to Dustin.
Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
The second issue is that the court held the government to failure to reveal its promise to Robert Taliento violated John Giglio due process rights established in Brady v. Maryland to receive all exculpatory evidence from the prosecution before trial. In relation, Napue v. Illinois, the undisclosed information proved that the government violated Giglio’s due process rights by presenting a false testimony from
The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is a case of illegal search and seizure. It went to the Supreme Court in 1961. It is important to today’s society because it might mean the difference between guilty and innocent. I agree with the Supreme Court because it is illegal to access private property without a warrant or consent. The case lasted until June 19, 1961.
Each State conducts its own criminal justice system, separate from federal authority, under the reserved powers of the Constitution. Alabama has its own bill of rights that recognizes the right of the accused to obtain counsel, but does not require the State to pay for attorneys to defend accused persons.” As for Powell the argument stated was this, “The young black men 's right to counsel was so fundamental to criminal proceedings that any trial conducted without a defense attorney was not a fair trial at all. Alabama 's conduct of the trial was unfair—a violation of a basic rule of decency and justice under the Constitution.” These two vastly different arguments made it rather challenging for the Supreme court to make a decision that was not favoring one side.
Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?