The research methods used in the article is also qualitative whereby the author reviews and analyzes the California Three Strikes Law as it was passed, how the federal court takes over a state case and the application of the law in a particular case. The method used is case study. The article found out that California’s voters were influenced by fear and politics to pass the Three Strikes law. The author also finds out that the application of the law raises questions on the proportionality in which it is applied, particularly to petty theft cases. Because of the lack of clarity in which the law can be applied, legislatures and citizens have the right to redefine the law and its
In 1967, William Baird was arrested after giving away vaginal foam to a 19 year old woman following a lecture at Boston University about contraceptives and over-population. At the time, in Massachusetts, it was felony offense to disburse birth control methods to unmarried men or women. Eventually, Eisenstadt v. Baird was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1972. In a 6-to-1 judgement, the Court ruled against the Massachusetts statute, but it was not in aggreeance with the due process of Griswold v. Connecticut, instead it was the Equal Protection Clause that was the deciding factor as reported by Justice William J. Brennan. He wrote, “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single,
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, affirmed the authority of government to take enemy troopers, but ruled that are held in custody and are U.S citizens, they must have the right of an unsettled process such as the right to challenge their enemy solider status before an un biased authority. Bumediene v. Bush, Enemy combatant detainees at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to the 5th amendment’s protection of due process. Congress lacked the power to get rid of the federal courts of jurisdiction to entertain habeas petitions from non-citizens held at Guantanamo Bay. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Detainees had the right to appeal their detentions in a federal court, which was invalidated military commissions. These were established by President Bush because they were
Wardlaw claimed that the two violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force on him and falsing arresting and prosecuting him. Wardlaw and the two Marshals ended up giving different stories, but the story that was used under law was Wardlaw’s story. The court ended up taking the Marshals’ side in this case as they felt the use of force was not excessive (“William C. Wardlaw, Appellant, v. William R. Pickett, Deputy United States Marshal, Et Al., Appellees, 1 F.3d 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1993)”). Wardlaw’s story stated that on June 7, 1988, Him and a man named John Heid was watching a court hearing.
“I’m taking this all the way to the Supreme Court!” In the United States if a defendant feels as though they did not receive a fair trial the court system allows the offended to appeal to a higher court. Likewise, if the next court’s decision is unsatisfactory the defendant can continue to appeal to higher courts until they reach the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. However, the Supreme Court is a vastly different courtroom than a trial court. The case of Gideon v. Wainwright highlights the differences between the Supreme Court and Trial Courts. Trial or District courts deal with the actual trying of the case.
A person’s right to have a lawyer and having a fair trial is protected by the Sixth Amendment. These clauses are enforced by Gideon v. Wainwright, where the Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendant has the right to have legal counsel if they could not afford one (“Facts and Case Summary – Gideon v. Wainwright”). Public defenders, or lawyers appointed by the court, provide representation in court without cost to the defendant. Fifty years after the ruling, public attorneys has been under scrutiny by both lawyers and clients. Said counsels are known for facing underfunding and unmanageable caseloads, while their clients claim that they are poorly represented in court.
Sukhsharn Kaur Johal Phil 4401 Dr. Nagel 28 August 2015 Loving v. Virginia This situation creates concern in that it brings up questions about how this case was handled by the State of Virginia and the Supreme Court of Appeals. Were Virginia anti-miscegenation laws constitutional? Did these laws indeed violate the Fourteenth Amendment? When the Lovings’s case reached the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Court supported the anti-miscegenation statutes and thus confirmed the convictions. This raises the question whether or not if the Supreme Court of Appeals violated the 14th Amendment too?
The first case that caused the Supreme Court to allow officers to authorize a search and seizure, was the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968. The case ruled whether or not it violated the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from an unreasonable search and seizure. The Supreme Court then determined that the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public does not violate the Fourth Amendment as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion”. Suspicions such as a person that may seem like they’re planning a crime, have committed a crime, or that may be armed and appear as dangerous. The reason why this policy escalated was due to an incident that happened On October 31, 1963 in Cleveland, Ohio.
He later appealed his case up the court system and eventually to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, due to such actions, he had been held illegally. The verdict in Betts v. Brady was that indigent defendants in non-capital state cases were only obligated to be provided with counsel in special
This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants. The Sixth Amendment right states that a Criminal Defendant, Miranda, has the right to a public trial with unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury,
The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the eighth amendment and was constitutional. This brings up the question “Was the case properly determined by the Supreme Court or should it be Congress to decide?” Furman v. Georgia (1972) was a case similar to Gregg’s. A man was convicted of murder and burglary. He has sentenced the death penalty. The Court later concluded that
The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear. The court said that police are compelled by the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth and Sixth Amendments to make sure suspects know they are not compelled to be a witness against him or herself, and that they have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning (McBride, 2006). The Court further held that ‘without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures
Mallory refused to incriminate himself and he was imprison for contempt the court and held until he willing to confess himself. Thing didn 't end there, he filed a habeas corpus against the court for violating his constitutional right. The Supreme Court of Connecticut granted him certiorari, over the decision of the