Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Overview of the American legal system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A forty-six-year-old man named Lawrence M. Bradford had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Syracuse, New York. Bradford claimed that police officers Chad D. Frederick and Shane M. Ryan entered his residence without a warrant, although his roommate Shara Bixby, let the officers into the house. Mr. Bradford said that the officers forced Shara Bixby into letting them into the residence after she had told police that he was not home. The two officers were there to arrest Mr. Bradford for his part in the assault of another man. Bradford pleaded guilty in Jefferson County Court in August 2013 to second-degree assault. Mr. Bradford and another man was accused of stealing money and property from Jeffrey Jewett in Watertown, New York, while striking him on the head and body, causing a cut above the victim’s …show more content…
eye and bruises on his body. The police said that two cellphones, two hundred dollars in cash and a bottle of prescription pills were stolen.
Mr. Bradford was sentenced to two and a half years in state prison for assault and filed a lawsuit from Ogdensburg Correctional Facility, implying that he would not have received a state prison sentence if not for the warrantless search of his residence. He was released from prison under parole supervision in February 2014. Bradford has not contacted the court about his lawsuit since November 2014. In July, Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks recommended that the action be dismissed because Mr. Bradford, who acted as his own attorney, had not advised the court of his change of address or provided any reason why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Judge David N. Hurd dismissed the case. Bradford claimed that he was forced into pleading guilty in County Court when a judge advised him of the potential years of incarceration he would face in the event he was convicted of assault following trial. He also claimed that the County Court sentenced him without the benefit of a presentence report. The appellate court rejected his
claims. In this case, the two officers did not face any consequences from the lawsuit that Bradford filed against them because he did not advise the court of his change of address or provided any reason of why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. The Judge, David N. Hurd, did not have any choice but to dismiss the case; so the police officers and the police department were not affected by the lawsuit that Bradford filed against them. The officers did not need a warrant to come into Bradford’s home in this situation because they were not doing a search. The police officers had probable cause to arrest Bradford for second-degree assault which is why they didn't need a warrant to arrest him. The police officers followed the law of probable cause and that’s one reason why the court dismissed the lawsuit that Bradford filed against the police department and the two police officers.
On March 24, 2016, officers were dispatched to a scene where a male subject was trying to gain entry into a vehicle using a hammer. Upon arrival officers made contact with a male subject who was later identified as Keith Hunt, the defendant, and the victim. The victim explained to the officers she was standing near the trunk of her vehicle when Mr. Hunt approached, He attempted to keep into her vehicle without permission; so she confronted the defendant and tried to secure her vehicle. Mr. Hunt demanded she give him the keys and her wallet. The victim stated the defendant had a hammer in his hand and was threatening her with it while he was telling her to hand over the property. They began to struggle over the keys and the victim screamed
In a Georgia Court, Timothy Foster was convicted of capital murder and penalized to death. During his trial, the State Court use peremptory challenges to strike all four black prospective jurors qualified to serve on the Jury. However, Foster argued that the use of these strikes was racially motivated, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S.79. That led his claim to be rejected by the trial court, and the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The state courts rejected relief, and the Foster’s Batson claim had been adjudicated on direct appeal. Finally, his Batson claim had been failed by the court because it failed to show “any change in the facts sufficient to overcome”.
The applicant Mr. Arthur Hutchinson was born in 1941. In October 1983, he broke into a house, murdered a man, his wife and their adult son. Then he repeatedly raped their 18-year old daughter, having first dragged her past her father’s body. After several weeks, he was arrested by the police and chargedwith the offences. During the trial he refused to accept the offence and pleaded for innocence. He denied accepting the killings and sex with the younger daughter.
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.
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your attention today. [Slide #2] I would like to assert that separation is not the end of a relationship. Divorce is not the end of a relationship. Even an arrest is not the end of a relationship. Only death is the end of a relationship. In the case of defendant Donna Osborn, her insistence that ‘“one way or another I’ll be free,”’ as told in the testimony of her friend Jack Mathews and repeated in many others’, indicates that despite the lack of planning, the defendant had the full intent to kill her husband, Clinton Osborn.
Consequently, Richard and Mildred’s case was heard in a City Court of Virginia, where they both plead guilty because a city lawyer representing their case
David Riley was pulled over on August 22, 2009 for driving with expired tags. Riley’s license was suspended and therefore, the car had to be impounded. Upon impounding the car it was searched, and its contents cataloged. When searching the car, police found two guns and added the charge of carrying a firearm to Riley’s offence. 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.
Facts of the case - The crime occured on June 3, 1961 between midnight and 8 A.M. A burglary occured at Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. The unknown criminal broke a door, smashed a cigarette machine and a record player, and stole money from a cash register. Later that day, and eye witness identified th perpetraitor as Clarence Earl Gideon. Based on this accusation
Facts: Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of first degree murder, assault with the intent to commit along with several gun related charges to boot. After going through the state courts in Michigan and exhausting all of his options he filed for habeas corpus relief in federal court within the same state. Then district courts denied his petition, but on the appeal it was stressed that his argument was that his confession was acquired in clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.
An artist has the right to recover damages for any intentional modification of their work of visual art which would be prejudicial to their reputation. 17 U.S.C.A. § 106A (2012). The Visual Artists Rights Act was created to protect an artist’s right to integrity with regard to works of visual art. Carter v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 861 F. Supp. 303, 324-27 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part, 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995). When someone intentionally modifies an artist’s work, they infringe on the artist’s right to integrity. See Flack v. Friends of Queen Catherine Inc., 139 F. Supp. 2d 526, 531 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). The defendant does not contest the fact that Striving for the Stars is a work of visual art. (Def’s Answer to Pl.’s
Baker v. Carr (1962) set historical precedent when the Supreme Court decided that they had the right to review redistribution issues, thereby granting such cases justiciability. This comes after the Court had refused to intervene in appointment cases in Colegrove v. Green (1946) under the rationale that Article I, section IV of the U.S. Constitution allowed only Congress to do so.
The Great Lawsuit Throughout the centuries, there have been many groups pursuing equal rights for themselves. These groups feel that they are excluded from privileges others possess and are subject to injustices that others are not. These groups feel they deserve better and that their presence in the world is unequal to others’. In the United States, a large percentage of women started to feel they warranted equal rights to men. Margaret Fuller was among the supporters of the movement and published a ground-breaking article called “The Great Lawsuit.”
This case was brought on by Oliver Brown. He had the help of NAACP to lead on the case. This case was brought up because his daughter, Linda Brown at 7-year-old had to travel several miles and cross a rail track to get to school rather than go to a whites-only school near to their house. The Topeka board of education denied Linda Brown admittance to an all-white school close to her house. Thurgood Marshall argued that a ‘separate but equal' violated equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Warren decided separate educational facilities were inherently unequal.
I arrested Andrew for Attempted assault in the second degree DV, for assaulting Payton in the hallway and threatening to cut his throat with the kitchen knife, and for leaving an injury on Payton’s neck, when he grabbed him from behind and pushed him into the wall.