-Facts: -Issue: 4 Elements - Men's Rea= Criminal Intent - Actus Rea= Wrongful Act - Concurrence of the Act= -Theory of Law: -Conclusion: How they ruled the case · Mala in Se= Acts that are bad in itself, to be punished · Mala Prohibita= Acts that are made crimes by the State or Local Laws Loving V. Commonwealth of Virginia 388 U.S. 1 U.S. Supreme Court June 12, 1967 Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code. Issue: The Sate of Virginia did not allowed marriages between persons of different racial classification. Was the State of Virginia violating the "Equal Protection" and the "Due Process" clauses of the 14th amendment? Does the state have the power to determine or place restrictions in regards to interracial marriages and not violate the constitution? Theory of Law: The Loving's were charged with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. Conclusion: The convictions must be reversed. It so ordered. Reversed. State V. Gordon 321 A. 2d 352 Supreme Judicial Court of Mine June 17, 1974 Wernick, Justice Facts: Richard Gordon escaped from jail, passed three states in the car that they had already stolen; they had two guns in possession. The car that they had started to show engine problems, so they went and looked for another vehicle; they found the Chevelle. Richard Gordon was charged with having committed the crime of "Armed Robbery" He was also accused, with intention to kill, assaulted a police officer. Richard Gordon pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was found guilty of "Armed Robbery." Issue: The defendant Richard Gordon and Strode had told Prout that they "Would take care of the automobile and see that he got it back as soon as possible." Could Richard Gordon be charged with "Armed Robbery"?
Police also had fingerprints from the buick the was used in the South Braintree crime. But the fingerprints didn’t match and the police instead questioned them on their religion, political beliefs and associates, instead of the crime. The prosecutors used witnesses, but the witness accounts made no sense. Meaning it didn’t match the descriptions of the men and the stories weren’t the same and had loopholes. One witness said she saw the shooting from 60 feet away and said one of the men, which she said was Sacco, had big hands but he had small hands.
Mr. and Mrs. Loving were residents of the small town of Central point, Virginia. They were family friends who had dated each other since he was seventeen and she a teenager. When they learned that marriage was illegal for them in Virginia, they simply drove over the Washington, D.C. for the ceremony. They returned to Virginia and were arrested the following month for violating the anti-miscegenation statute, which was declared in the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Commonwealth’s Attorney Bernard Mahon obtained the warrant for Richard Loving and “Mildred Jeter”. Mildred’s maiden name was on the warrant because in Virginia a marriage between a white and black was considered void. In October 1958, the indictments of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were bought before the court and on January 6, 1959, Richard and Mildred pled not guilty to the charges. Changing their pleas to guilty and waiving their right to a jury trial due to fear and optimism for a favorable punishment, the Lovings took the plea bargain. The Circuit Court judge that was presiding over the case, Judge Leon M. Bazile, did not see favor on them and sentenced them to one year in jail. Yet, at the same time in agreement with the plea bargain, Judge Bazile suspended the sentence for 25 years provided that the Lovings would leave the state of Virginia immediately and not return together for the whole period. There was a catch, for when the 25 year period ends they would still face the prosecution of the court if they ever returned. He concluded his decision with this quote:
.... This new amendment prohibited the states to deny the right to vote because of race.
The Elmira Police arrested 34-year-old Robert Case, of Elmira, who was charged with 2nd degree Robbery, a class C felony offense. Case's preliminary hearing is set for July 23rd at 1 P.M. at the Elmira City
Riley also had his cell phone. The gang unit detective searched his phone and found evidence connecting Riley to gang activity. They also found evidence connecting Riley to a recent shooting of a car that belonged to a member of a different gang. Evidence on his phone, along with ballistic tests, indicated that Riley was involved in the shooting of an occupied vehicle. Riley was charged for shooting the vehicle, attempted murder, and assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison.
It was not that long ago that interracial marriage was prohibited in the United States. In fact, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court decision established that anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional. Laws against interracial marriage were unfair and unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment, which granted citizens the right to equal protection of the law and due process. The famous case that granted the right to marry interracially was Loving vs. Virginia. In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, an African American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia where it was legal. When returning back home the Lovings were charged with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The couple...
Richard and Mildred Loving were prosecuted on charges of violating the Virginia state’s ban on interracial marriages, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act. The Loving’s violated Virginia law when the couple got married in Washington D.C., June 1958. The couple returns to their home in Central Point, Virginia. In the early morning hours of July 11, 1958, the Loving’s were awakened by local county sheriff and deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom. “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?” Mrs. Loving answered “I’m his wife.” Richard Loving pointed to the marriage certificate on the wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.” In the initial proceedings presiding Judge Leon M. Bazile, is credit with saying “[a]lmighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents,” the judge attests, “[t]he fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix”(Sheppard 1). Upon the initial trail the Loving’s were sentence to one-year each, Bazile agreed to suspend their prison sentences if they would leave the state for 25 years. So the Loving’s opted to live in Washington D.C. only 90 miles from their rural hometown. After five years of sneaking back to Central Pointe, Mildred wrote to Attorney General Bobby Kennedy asking for help. Kennedy referred her to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which assigned Bernard S. Cohen and Philip J. Hirschkop to the case. The Loving’s sought review of a judgment from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia which held that Virginia Code sections 20-58 and 20-59, which were adopted by to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classification, did not violate t...
The extents of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has been long discussed since its adoption in mid-late 1800s. Deciding cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade has been possible due to mentioned amendment. These past cases not only show the progression of American society, but also highlights the degree of versatility that is contained within the amendment. Now, in 2015, the concerns are not of racial segregation or abortion, the extent of the amendment was brought to a new field: same-sex marriage. In Obergefell v Hodges, we can see the epitome of the Equal Protection Clause.
1) In your Engager, you learned about three different models of judicial decision making. First, explain the three models. Tell their strengths and weaknesses. Then, explain which you think best describes the behavior of Supreme Court Justices, and why.
In entering his plea, Strickland told Judge Robert Rinfret that he did not initially know of the others' intent to commit a robbery, but knew what had happened when he drove them away. He said he realized such is considered aiding
Virginia case. This case was about how an interracial couple wanted to get married and Virginia state said no. This was unfair also. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution (Constitution) prohibits classifications drawn by any statute that constitutes arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The fact that Virginia bans only interracial marriages involving whites is proof that the miscegenation statutes exist for no purposes independent of those based on arbitrary and invidious racial discrimination (case briefs). Virginia had a law that said black and white people could not marry. At the end of the case the Supreme Court decision was that to have a law that rules against interracial marriage was
In 1967, Loving v. Virginia became an iconic victory after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a conviction and abolished laws that made interracial marriage illegal. Richard and Mildred Loving were the subjects of the pivotal case. The couple broke Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws when they went to Washington D.C. to marry and then returned. Their court victory ended the remaining states’ interracial marriage laws.
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.
Furthermore, the word "equal" in section 1 of the 14th amendment implies that everyone should have the right to get married no matter what his or her sexual preference. Marriage is the legal and public documentation of the love and trust two people share for each other. This means that anyone should be able to marry whomever he or she wishes.
In order to understand why D’Amato thinks Alice should be exempt from her fine of $50 we need to understand his concepts of the relationship between law and justice. To begin we must remember that the purpose of the rule of law in the first place is to control and compensate for human error in a general form. In doing so we recognize that people are going to break the laws and there will be repercussions for doing so. However, because humans are complicated there is not a formulated response to the outcomes. There are several factors that play into the end product of punishment. It’s not as simple as, everyone that breaks law x is punished with a charge of y. It is for this reason that D’Amato says humans make such decisions and not computers.