Since due process is how we define the order and the correct way of doing things, this is how it applies: In the Terry versus Ohio case, Terry believe that officers should have probable cause before the officer was able to stop and frisk individuals. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers have the right to stop and frisk without probable cause, meaning the process McFadden used was correct. On the other hand, in Miranda versus Arizona, Miranda had not been informed of his right to remain silent before giving his confession of committing the crimes he had been accused of. In turn his confession was not valid. If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial.
Mrs. Ferjo’s application against the tribunal stated that she believed that the tribunal discriminated against her at the previous hearing when they denied her legal representation. Mrs. Ferjo checked off sexual discrimination on the application form but could not provide any factual evidence that she faced discrimination on those grounds. Mrs. Ferjo was therefore unable to establish prima facie case.  The tribunal argued the doctrine of judicial immunity prevented legal proceedings against judicial members based on their actions as an adjudicator or decision maker. This is so that judicial members can make decisions without fear of consequences.
As well as, a person can’t be a double jeopardy which means if someone commits a crime and the police didn’t find any evidence against them so they can free to go. It indicates that if the court didn’t have any evidence against a criminal and the court let him go and later, police find evidence against criminals so they can’t arrest that person again. It shows to us that the seventh amendment is very important and helpful. The 8th Amendment is important to all people that live in the United States. First, the 8th Amendment helps the courts to take a decision.
A person who regrets something they’ve done, who is truly reticent of a mistake, should not giggle and be so flippant. (Pow) If a person is claiming self-defense, she should not lie and repeatedly change stories. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a fitting and accurate diagnosis, but it does not diminish the horror of the crime she committed. She changed her plea from guilty to not guilty, and then explained it was self-defense, and then again elaborated that it was a case of home invasion. (Pow) Nevertheless, throughout it all, Arias was only able to recall minimal details from the event.
Equally important, the reason for denial of a consuel was absolutely absurd. They did not grant him a fair trial like others because they claimed that, “the state doesn't have to provide a poor person with a lawyer unless "special circumstances" exist” (Streetlaw). With this in mind the main reason the anti-federalists created the bill of rights and added the 6th amendment was because of people who were unable to obtain a counsel for their defense. Further proving that the Supreme court sided for Gideon’s rights when reopening his case and giving him counsel for the fair trial he should’ve had before. In brief, Gideon had a right to a counsel for his defense since it was his constitutional right under the 6th amendment rather he was poor or
This Act’s requirements are retroactive which require offenders convicted of the crimes after a specific date to register. The two people involved in the case were seeking to pronounce the Act void and that it should not apply to them due to it falling under the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I Section 10 on of the United States Constitution. At the conclusion of the case in a 6 to 3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy the court had determined that the Act’s retroactive requirement did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the Act is considered non-punitive since it was intended as civil means of identifying previous offenders in order to be able to protect the public by making them
The rule is intended to prevent police officers from violating the rights granted by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, evidence obtained by the police that violates the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone accused of a crime. Some people think that without this rule, the Fourth Amendment would not make sense. As with many other legal rules, this rule has several exceptions. In the Supreme Court relied on the rule of "good faith" holding that the evidence obtained by the officers conducting inquiries based on a "good faith" court order that is subsequently found to be deficient is also admissible.
After Fields conviction had been overturned, The U.S. government decided to appeal Fields case. The Supreme court accepted the case. Fields attorneys are arguing that the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. Field attorneys argued that Fields cannot be convicted because he lied. The First amendment protects speech that does not directly harm others.
At appeal, the court ruled that the confession to Sarivola should have been suppressed due to coercion, through the threat of future abuse. While the court held that the confession to Sarivola should not have been used against him, ultimately it didn’t matter
8TH Amendment The 8th Amendment was formed to ensure that punishment for a crime was not cruel or unusual. It also has a clause for those with mental illness so that they will not face the death penalty for committing a crime that a sane person would commit. And those under the age of 18 would not face the death penalty. Since the 8th Amendment was attached to the Bill of Rights in 1791 it has taken on a different meaning for the accused of breaking the law and prisoner of today. In this paper we will look at several cases in which the 8th Amendment has been used in my opinion unethically to justify everything from gender reassignment surgery to claiming that one was mentally insane in order to get out of facing the death penalty.