Agurs, the Supreme Court had expanded the rule by recognizing a duty to disclose exculpatory information even in the absence of a specific request for it, and the prosecutor failed to disclose this information that violated the defendants due process clause. In this case the female defendant testified self-defense with the stabling of her male acquaintance in a hotel room. She was then convicted of second degree murder. After the conviction of her trail the defendant had learned that the prosecutor failed to disclose this information at the trial of the victim (male acquaintance) having guilty pleas to assault and weapons possession charges. The prosecution failed to mention to the court and jury of the victims’ previous criminal background in the trial (Judge,…
While the Fourteenth Amendment establishes due process and equal protection of the law. The Garrity Rights begin in New Jersey when two law enforcement officers were being investigated. These two officers were given the choice to either incriminate themselves or to loss their jobs under a statute on the grounds of self-incrimination. The confessions of the officers were taken; however, their confession was not voluntary, but coerced as they were under the impression that they would lose their jobs if they did not cooperate with the internal investigation. The purpose of this case study is to determine whether these officers’ Fifth and Fourteenth…
Alba Zhingri Terry vs. Ohio This case was decided on June 10, 1968. Detective Martin McFadden was known on the Cleveland police force for his skill in apprehending pickpockets. He was patrolling for many years. On October 31, 1963 he saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting in a suspicious way.…
Student protestors of Gallaudet University presented the Gallaudet University Board of Trustees with four demands: 1. The resignation of the newly appointed university president Elizabeth Zinser, a hearing person, and the selection of a Deaf person as the universities president. 2. The immediate resignation of Jane Basset Spilman, who was chair of the Board of Trustees. 3.…
CASE BRIEF Case Name – Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 12 (2013) Facts – Genovevo Salinas, the petitioner, who was not in custody or read Miranda warnings, agreed to go to the police station to answer questions regarding involvement in a murder. When petitioner was asked if ballistic testing would match ammunition casings found at the scene, he remained silent. Petitioner contended that the prosecutors’ use of his silence to indicate guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Procedural History – The petitioner was charged in Texas state court with murder.…
Question 1) Oregon vs. Smith, is a United States Supreme Court case that determined wither or not the state could reject unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state’s narcotic prohibition, even if the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Legally states have the right to accommodate some illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, but they are not required to make accommodations. This made The Supreme Court decision a major event in Native American religious beliefs, the case attracted widespread support form not only Native religious beliefs but also voodoo religious beliefs. Oregon v. Smith had a diverse range of religious groups eager to protect their own religious freedom and their use of spiritual medicine.…
Mapp v. Ohio, after reading the case file this case should not have ever made it to the Supreme Court or any court in the land. This case was doomed from the beginning due to police misconduct that has opened a crack in a door for criminals to slide through. Should the exclusionary rule be abolished? I do believe that court’s ruling regarding Mapp v. Ohio affect the day-to-day police work of our Officers. Peradventure, that the police are serving a legal warrant to pick up robbery suspect who also is a known drug dealer, because of the exclusionary rule from Mapp v. Ohio when the police arrive at the suspect address, they are not allow to search the home looking for drugs unless the warrant stipulates.…
The struggle between the Native Americans and the Americans was extremely relevant and volatile during the 1800’s. The struggle escalated in 1830 when Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act (“Worcester”). As a result, new issues arose on a fight that had been around for centuries between the Native Americans and the Americans. One major collateral outcome of this act is the Supreme Court case, Worcester vs. Georgia. This case and the results of it turned out to be a major step forward for the Native Americans fighting for their rights and freedom during this time.…
One of the most intellectual forces of the Marshall Court was its importance on the Supreme Court's power in Marbury v. Madison. Preceding to the Marshall Court, organizers of the Constitution, For example, Alexander Hamilton inquired the Supreme Court part as the lowest part of the major branch of government. The Marshall Court changed this knowledge in Marbury v. Madison. The case's crucial issue was whether the court had the power to support a constitutional check on the case.…
Alejandrina Carreno Mrs. Kemp Civics May 3, 2015 Gregg v. Georgia The case of Gregg v. Georgia involved the case of Troy Gregg versus the state of Georgia. The case was decided by the United States Supreme Court in July of 1976 in which involved the sentencing of the death penalty. Troy Leon Gregg, was arrested in 1973 due to armed robbery and murder convictions, it was believed that Gregg was involved in the robbery and murder of two men in Georgia.…
The Fifth Amendment says that no one can be accused of a crime unless a grand jury decides that there is enough evidence to charge a person for a crime in court. The defendant has a choice to testify or not to testify. If they choose to testify, the defendant loses his Fifth Amendment privilege and must answer the questions asked. However, at the trial the defendant who has been called to the witness stand by the grand jury can refuse to answer certain…
Texas vs. Johnson (An analysis of the supreme court case Texas vs. Johnson and the current repercussions of the decision) The first amendment protects many of our basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. The framers of our constitution left a broad wording to leave room for our country to grow and change as time went on. One of the adjustments our country has made over time is to define the actions and words protected under the freedom of speech. There are three basic categories of free speech; pure speech, is communication only through words, speech plus is speech plus an aid such as a sign or a chant, and symbolic speech, an action that communicates meaning without the use of words.…
Privacy rights is an issue that dates back to the nineteen hundreds. Even though there is a disagreement where the right of privacy is specifically stated in the constitution, Supreme Court justices have agreed that the right to privacy does exist. One major concern regarding the right to privacy is the issue of consensual adult women having the ability to freely use contraceptives without government intrusion. The use to freely use contraceptives was a major issue from 1873 when the Comstock Law of 1873 originated making it illegal to sell or promote anything that dealt with contraception or abortion etc. This paper will discuss three articles that brings light to the privacy concerns about using contraceptives.…
This case mainly references the Fifth Amendment, the right against self-incrimination. In the case, Malloy, a petitioner, was sentenced to one year in jail for unlawful gambling. After 3 months, however, he was released from jail and put on probation for 2 years. While malloy was on probation, he was asked to testify to a state inquiry into gambling and other criminal-related activities that Malloy was involved in. When he heard this, he declined to testify and answer their questions because it would have incriminated…
My first step for my research was to see who is involved. Two of the legal issues involve Victor for shooting Dan and for biting a police officer. Victor’s mother is a legal issue for hiding him from the police when questioned if she knew where he was. The police are included for pushing the mother out of the way and entering her home to search and apprehend Victor and shell casings without a search warrant. Also, Benny for throwing the gun used in the shooting over the bridge.…