In Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) probationers were afforded the right to a preliminary hearing at the time of their arrest to determine if there is probable cause to believe they have committed a parole violation and a final hearing that is a more comprehensive hearing to determine the making of a final revocation decision (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973). The Court’s rulings in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) resulted in neither probation nor parole can be revoked without a formal due process hearing that requires notice, disclosure of evidence, an opportunity to be heard, a neutral hearing body, and written statements of the fact-finders (Zalman, 2011, p. 308).The Court stated in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) that the body
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
The Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence disputing that the Government was negligent in disclosing a purported promise of leniency made to Robert Taliento, their key witness in exchange for his testimony. At a hearing on this motion, the Assistant United States Attorney, DiPaola, who presented the case to the grand jury admitted that he promised the witness that he would not be prosecuted if he testified before the grand jury and at trial. The Assistant (Golden) who tried the case was unaware of the promise. The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction on the grounds that this non-disclosure was a violation of his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is our conclusion that there is today no factual justification for immunity in a case such as this, and that the principles of law, logic and intrinsic justice demand that the mantle of humanity must be withdrawn.” (Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, Michigan)
It was a shock to all when it came out that Liberace was in a sexual relationship with a young boy. The relationship broke two norms, age gap and same gender relations. The relationship did not last long and soon after a court case arose between the lovers. There had been several problems and issues that occurred that drove the lovers to court. Since it had been one of the first court cases relating to gay relations, there were many problems with the ruling and jurisdiction in the case. Even after the case, issues still remained unsolved with the former couple. The court case of Liberace v. Thorson showed the some of the first known and initial problems with same sex relationship court proceedings before the LGBT equality movement.
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.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given.
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.
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.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
In the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli, Scarpelli was convicted of armed robbery. His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. While on probation, he was arrested during the course of a burglary. His probation was revoked without a hearing. He appealed, arguing among other things that his due process right was violated because he was not afforded his right to counsel during his revocation process. Scarpelli did no deny his involvement in the second crime but that he was compelled to commit the crime by another accomplice. It was after the second robbery that Scarpelli had his probation revoked and put back into prison without the benefit of a proper trial.
Strong, F. (1986). Substatntive Due process of law: A Dichotomy of sense and Nonsense. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
The captivity of slaves as one’s property was orginally enforced by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, although it still did not address those who might assist a slave’s escape. Titled “An Act respecting the fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters”, this law officially permitted the recapture of slaves who escaped to northern free states. Therefore, former slaves were at risk of recapture for all their lives. Moreover, children of escaped slave mothers were made lifelong property of the mother’s master. Numerous northern states authorized enactment to secure free dark Americans - who could somehow or another be kidnapped, then conveyed under the steady gaze of court without the capacity to create a protection, and in this manner legitimately oppressed - and also runaway slaves. These laws came to be known as "personal liberty laws" and required slave proprietors and outlaw seekers to deliver confirm that their catches were genuinely criminal slaves, "similarly as southern states requested the privilege to recover runaway slaves, northern states requested the privilege to shield their free dark occupants from being abducted and sold into subjugation in the South.” A controversial example may be the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Edward Prigg was a citizen of Maryland and had been arraigned by a Pennsylvania court for trying to capture a black woman in York County to send her to Maryland as a fugitive slave. He was attempted and indicted by a local court in Pennsylvania, yet the case was finally appealed to the Supreme Court.