Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of court cases
Analysis of court cases
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of court cases
Case Brief
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
…show more content…
Arizona was not necessary to the decision. Justice Stevens both concurred and dissented in part of the judgments. Stevens claimed that recording the confession doesn’t mean it is involuntary or that it doesn’t follow the Due Process Clause. Stevens believed that Connelly’s incompetence to stand trial meant he could have been incompetent to waive his rights. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented and also believed that Connelly’s mental state was a reasonable factor in determining the validity of his waiving of rights. They thought that a confession given by a defendant who is mentally ill is one not given under a clear state of mind and is not voluntary. Without his confession, officers would have never obtained valid evidence to convict him of murder. Due process requires independent collection of evidence that would contribute to a conviction. Since there was no police misconduct, the evidence gathered had to be because of Connelly’s free, voluntary, confession but he was not able to make an intellectual decision at that
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
Her little boy wasn't expected to make it through the night, the voice on the line said (“Determined to be heard”). Joshua Deshaney had been hospitalized in a life threatening coma after being brutally beat up by his father, Randy Deshaney. Randy had a history of abuse to his son prior to this event and had been working with the Department of Social Services to keep custody over his son. The court case was filed by Joshua's mother, Melody Deshaney, who was suing the DSS employees on behalf of failing to protect her son from his father. To understand the Deshaney v. Winnebago County Court case and the Supreme courts ruling, it's important to analyze the background, the court's decision, and how this case has impacted our society.
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
The case, Kansas v. Cheever, came about after Scott D. Cheever murdered Sheriff Matthew Samuels on January 19th, 2005. Samuels was with two of his deputies at the Cooper home in a rural part of Greenwood County, Kansas to execute a warrant for Scott Cheever’s arrest when Cheever shot and killed him. After Cheever was arrested, he was charged with capital murder and attempted capital murder and was also charged with various other drug charges and criminal possession of firearms. Cheever was first on trial in federal court because it was a capital case and Kansas had just ruled Capital punishment unconstitutional and was under then under review. Cheever used a voluntary intoxication defense claiming he was so high on methamphetamines he could not have premeditated the murder. In return the court ordered a mental...
In 2009, Defendant-Appellant, Stephanie Lazarus, was convicted of first-degree murder in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County for a crime that occurred in 1986. The case was unsolved until 2009, when a DNA profile obtained from a bite mark on the victim’s arm was matched to Lazarus. Because of the 23-year lapse in time between the crime and her arrest, Lazarus argued that she had suffered a due process violation. Her claim was denied by the Court of Appeal for the Second District of California.
In my opinion, the author supporting the baker has a better argument. One of the reasons that makes Richard's argument better is that he doesn't use superfluous examples and information. The case is about sexual-discrimination and most of the examples that both authors use does not comply the context of the argument. However, Richard brings up a better example that I can relate to in order to compare the two arguments of the "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission". Both authors gave a different example of how the conversation between the baker and the customers went. One claimed that the baker was kind enough to give the couple direction to
When he was being questioned Micheal was not under arrest and was not read his Miranda Rights but during the interview with investigators he admitted to his contribution. Based on his confession and statements he was arrested along with found guilty of second-degree murder and attempted robbery. But the “Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction and found that since the offender was an adolescent and felt daunted while he was “in custody” in the terms of Miranda Rights and should have been read his rights” (Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004, p. 1, 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence). The main issue of this case is whether or not the police officers should have thought about Micheal’s age and the history of the suspect when deciding whether or not he was “in custody” and for that reason entitled to his Miranda warnings under the Fifth
Proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than merely “a preponderance of evidence” was now required for an adjudication” (Snyder & Sickmund 2006, p.96). A case to represent these laws enacted is the In re Gault 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967). This case was about a fifteen year old, Gerald Gault, who was on probation in Arizona for a minor property offence, when in 1964, he and a friend made a prank telephone call to an adult neighbor. In the court proceedings, Gault’s lawyer argued that the accused was violated of his constitutional rights. In this case, the rights to notice the charges counsel, questioning of witness and self-incrimination etc. were
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case was discussed between February 28 and March 1, 1966 before the Court of Warren. The Chief Justice, Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion on behalf of himself and judges Hugo Black, William Douglas, William Brennan Jr. and Abe Fortas. The supreme judge John Marshall Harlan wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by judges Porter Stewart and Byron White. Judge Tom Clark wrote a concurring opinion against. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Miranda case centered around whether were not violated or the rights of the Fifth Amendment of Miranda against self-incrimination and the rights of the Sixth Amendment to consult a lawyer before make
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.