Facts and lower court procedural disposition of the case Defendant Freddie Lee Hall filed a motion to declare Florida Statute 921.137 (Florida Statute) as contrary to Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and, thus, unconstitutional. Hall, convicted in 1981 for the murder of Karol Hurst, was initially sentenced to death in September 1982. For three years, he fought his sentence, filing “a motion to vacate, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and an application for a stay of execution, all of which were denied” . In 1986, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard his appeal and reversed part of the lower court’s ruling, a decision granted when the court found Hall “entitled to a hearing on the issues of his absence from the courtroom and whether he deliberately bypassed his ineffective assistance of counsel claim” . Lower courts gave him no reprieve, though, and Hall petitioned the Supreme Court for relief based on Hitchcock v. Dugger (1987), a case in which the Court found that “all mitigating factors, not just statutory mitigation, should be considered by the judge and jury” . The Court did not find Hall to have an adequate claim, and the governor of Florida signed Hall’s second death warrant in September 1988. When Hall filed his second claim to the Court, again claiming procedural error under Hitchcock, it this time determined that an error had occurred and granted him a new sentencing proceeding. At the 1993 trial, the court found Hall mentally retarded yet competent enough to stand trial; it again sentenced him to death. In 2002, the Court decided Atkins and opened the door for defendants to challenge their sentence using Atkins claims. Hall filed such a motion in 2004, but the evidentiary hearing to reexamine the mental retard... ... middle of paper ... ...s Claims of Mental Retardation, 39 HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY 1, 1-173 (2011). Tobolowsky, supra at 47. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 921.137(1) Brief of Petitioner at 10, Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882 (2013). Id. at 7 (quoting Hall v. State, 109 So.3d 704 (Fla. Dec. 20, 2012)). Id. Brief of Petitioner, supra at 8 (quoting Hall 109 So.3d at 714). Brief of Respondent, supra at 9 Brief of Petitioner, supra at 8 (quoting Hall 109 So.3d at 714). David Wechsler, WAIS IV Administrative and Scoring Manuel (2008), at http://ux1.eiu.edu/~glcanivez/Adobe%20pdf/Publications-Papers/Canivez%20(2010)%20Buros%20MMY%20WAIS-IV%20Review.pdf Brief of Petitioner, supra at 10 Brief of Petitioner, supra at 13. Brief of Respondent, supra at 9. Tobolowsky, supra at 10. Id. at 11 (quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 308) Id. (quoting Atkins, 536 U.S. at 317, n.22).
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.
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
James Desmond Booth, who is presently 30, had received good grades all throughout all his years in school and had a good family life, after being adopted by his grandparents. He also played varsity basketball in his hometown, at New Smyrna Beach High School. His grandmother, Beulah Booth, stated that her grandson was also a good father to his daughter and infant son, while other family members suggested that he loved his young children and he continues to make contributions in their lives. It is peculiar that a man with these beginnings and familial connections went on to receive seven felony convictions, with some including “possession of a stolen firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon” (Frederick 2014 p.1: Sept. 29, 2009). After sitting in on the current trial brought against Mr. Booth and taking notes, sociological theories of crime were utilized to help to interpret the previous actions of this particular man’s history of misconduct.
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.
...son to Celia’s case. Hall’s decision of Jameson was fair even though McLaurin wrote “…Jameson might not be among the body’s keenest intellects or its most diligent student of the legislative process” (84), now it could be said that Hall knew this about Jameson beforehand, but chose Jameson anyway to give the trial some validity. Once the trial started Hall began to sandbag the defense’s arguments by not allowing “any reference to supposed threats on Celia’s life…” (McLaurin 106) and even while the jury was deliberating Hall “came down squarely on the prosecution… and he delivered to the jury every instruction requested by the prosecution” (McLaurin 110). Hall clearly never had any intention of giving Celia a fair trial just the appearance of one, which would benefit him during his reelection and possible stop the war that was brewing between Missouri and Kansas.
The case of The People Vs. Hall in 1854, was about George Hall a white miner, who murdered Ling Sing a chinese miner, over a dispute that they had. It was disputed in the California Supreme Court in 1854, with the majority of opinion delivered by Chief Justice Hugh Murray with the concurrence of Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt. In the hearing, George hall appealed to the verdict, arguing that the 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases provides that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action or åproceeding in which a white person is a party. The issue with this appeal was that the 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, did not included chinese or any other different ethnic background that was not listed in that section. For Chinese did not immigrated to America, until 1852, in which they were coming for work after the economic fall out of the Opium War of 1840.
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.
In conclusion, Ralph Tortorici’s trial was unfair. Through his history of anger and solitary that later lead to a severe illness, the lack of proper trial due to the reason that the prosecution should not have gone forward after there was clear evidence of Ralph’s unstable mental health and the lack of support for his paranoia schizophrenia are all factors that demonstrate why Ralph was given an unjust trial.
The case Worcester v. Georgia (1832) was a basis for the discussion of the issue of states' rights versus the federal government as played out in the administration of President Andrew Jackson and its battle with the Supreme Court. In addition to the constitutional issues involved, the momentum of the westward movement and popular support for Indian resettlement pitted white man against Indian. All of these factors came together in the Worcester case, which alarmed the independence of the Cherokee Nation, but which was not enforced. This examines the legal issues and tragic consequences of Indian resettlement.
There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law, like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact, obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific, this case deals with what is considered obscene, and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment, the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth.
“How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” According to DPIC (Death penalty information center), there are one thousand –four hundred thirty- eight executions in the United States since 1976. Currently, there are Two thousand –nine hundred –five inmates on death row, and the average length of time on death row is about fifteen years in the United States. The Capital punishment, which appears on the surface to the fitting conclusion to the life of a murder, in fact, a complicated issue that produces no clear resolution.; However, the article states it’s justice. In the article “How the Death Penalty Saves Lives” an author David B. Muhlhausen illustrates a story of Earl Ringo , Jr, brutal murder’s execution on September ,10,
Opponents of the death punishment lauded the Supreme Court decision in the 1972 ruling that a jury's unregulated option to impose the death penalty led toward a "wanton and freakish pattern of its use" that was cruel and unusual. However, the anti-death penalty lobby was not the outright winners because the court failed to call the death penalty unconstitutional. Just a few years later, capital punishment was back with full force in the United States.
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.
“Criminal Law and Procedure -Eighth Amendment- Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentences: Graham v. Florida” (2009) Harvard Law Review. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.