Justin Ngo
Mr. Navarro
Government
6 December 2017
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Part II
Gideon v Wainwright A Florida man by the name of Charles E. Gideon was charged for breaking into a poolroom with the intent of conducting a misdemeanor. This crime was considered a felony in Florida. At the trial, Gideon appeared without an attorney. He requested for the judge to appoint one for him as he couldn’t afford one. However, the judge denied Gideon’s request as the law said that an attorney could only be appointed for capital offenses. After the trial, which Gideon represented himself, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. He then filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus in Florida’s supreme court which promptly denied his petition. Failing the initial …show more content…
He was arrested and charged on the basis that he violated a Texan law preventing the desecration of venerated objects, which includes the American flag. He was sentenced to a year in prison and was fined $2,000 for his actions. He filed an appeal stating that his flag burning was a sort of symbolic speech, protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme court listened to his appeal and in a 5-4 ruling, they said that his actions were protected under the First Amendment. I think that this decision was one of activism because even though they used the definite meaning of the First Amendment, and stated that his right to burn the flag was constitutional, they had to look at the situation as a whole and see whether the action was appropriate or not. Even though there was a State law in place to protect against unlawful burning of the American flag, the First Amendment protects symbolic speech which is what the Supreme Court deemed Johnson’s act …show more content…
After being denied entry, they left and subsequently returned with a faux search warrant. After this, they promptly entered the residence with force and conducted a search. With this search, they did not find the suspect but instead found obscene materials which were illegal in the state of Ohio. Using the evidence, the officers brought her to trial and she was then convicted for the possession of these materials. The main premise of the case is whether or not evidence obtained illegally can be used as evidence against a suspect. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that the evidence was illegally obtained and thus could not be used in the court of
Mr. Navarro
Government
6 December 2017
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Part II
Gideon v Wainwright A Florida man by the name of Charles E. Gideon was charged for breaking into a poolroom with the intent of conducting a misdemeanor. This crime was considered a felony in Florida. At the trial, Gideon appeared without an attorney. He requested for the judge to appoint one for him as he couldn’t afford one. However, the judge denied Gideon’s request as the law said that an attorney could only be appointed for capital offenses. After the trial, which Gideon represented himself, he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. He then filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus in Florida’s supreme court which promptly denied his petition. Failing the initial …show more content…
He was arrested and charged on the basis that he violated a Texan law preventing the desecration of venerated objects, which includes the American flag. He was sentenced to a year in prison and was fined $2,000 for his actions. He filed an appeal stating that his flag burning was a sort of symbolic speech, protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme court listened to his appeal and in a 5-4 ruling, they said that his actions were protected under the First Amendment. I think that this decision was one of activism because even though they used the definite meaning of the First Amendment, and stated that his right to burn the flag was constitutional, they had to look at the situation as a whole and see whether the action was appropriate or not. Even though there was a State law in place to protect against unlawful burning of the American flag, the First Amendment protects symbolic speech which is what the Supreme Court deemed Johnson’s act …show more content…
After being denied entry, they left and subsequently returned with a faux search warrant. After this, they promptly entered the residence with force and conducted a search. With this search, they did not find the suspect but instead found obscene materials which were illegal in the state of Ohio. Using the evidence, the officers brought her to trial and she was then convicted for the possession of these materials. The main premise of the case is whether or not evidence obtained illegally can be used as evidence against a suspect. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 vote that the evidence was illegally obtained and thus could not be used in the court of