Most Americans would claim a cop killer should be put to death which is what Scott D Cheever will face if he loses in the Supreme Court of the United States. Scott D Cheever and the state of Kansas argued before Supreme Court of the United States on October 16, 2013. The question posed before the court was when a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the state violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant? The answer is no, the United States Supreme Court should reverse the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court because his fifth amendment’s rights were not violated. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...ficit which was beyond temporary intoxication, it implied mental status defense. Because it was a mental status defense and not a voluntary intoxication defense the Fifth Amendment privilege is waived as stated in Buchanan V. Kentucky: When a defendant asserts a mental status defense and supports it with evidence, the defendant waives the Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to evidence from a court ordered mental examination used to rebut the defense. Therefore his psychiatric examination was not compelled and the state was completely within its right to rebut with the court ordered examination. Also under the Fifth Amendment it clearly states “A defendant may waive the Fifth amendment privilege by tactical decisions or actions” When Cheever chose to an expert to testify about his mental status he tactically made the decision to waive his fifth amendment rights.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
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 case of Ford V. Wainwright is a Supreme court case of the United Stated argued in 1986. Alvin Bernard Ford is the plaintiff in this case, In 1974 he was convicted of murder in Florida and sentenced to death. In 1982 Ford began to show signs of a serious mental disorder. The Governor of Florida then appointed a panel of three psychiatrist to determine if Ford was component to understand the nature of the death penalty and the crime he had committed. All three psychiatrist disagreed on his exact diagnosis but agreed that he was sane and knew the nature of the death penalty. Ford’s attorney unsuccessfully sought a hearing in the state court for determination of his competency and then filed a hebeas corpus petition, which is a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court especially for investigation of a restraint of the person’s liberty. The Florida courts denied his petition and signed a death warrant for Ford in 1984. Ford then sued Louie L. Wainwright, the defendant, who at the time of the case was the Secretary of the Florida Division of Correction.
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, racism, which was hardly unfamiliar, became an even greater problem. The Japanese Government's attacks on Americans including; torturing, raping, and murdering was an excuse for Americans aversion towards the Japanese. Public officials began to lock up the Japanese people simply for their own good, for protection against the hate crimes.
" 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. 3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
During the interrogation of the teens a part of the fifth amendment was violated. The right that prohibited them from self incrimination was infringed upon. They were aggressively questioned to the point that admitting
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties. Laws passed by elected officials that infringe on these liberties are invalidated by the judiciary as unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1791; the Framers of the Fifth Amendment intended that its revisions would apply only to the actions of the federal government. After the Fourteenth was ratified, most of the Fifth Amendment's protections were made applicable to the states. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, most of the liberties set forth in the Bill of Rights were made applicable to state governments through the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment (Burton, 2007).
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
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.
The articles "Freedom of Speech: Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City" and "Freedom of Religion: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association" both engage in conflicts pertaining to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.