In the late 1940s Dr. Julius Wolf was arrested and charged with conspiracy of performing illegal abortions. A Colorado woman named Gertrude Martin had a back- alley abortion which, at the time, was illegal in the state of Colorado. She later had medical complications, therefore landing her in the hospital where she was then questioned by the police. When questioned, Ms. Martin implicated Dr. Wolf which in turn led the police to enter Wolfs practice and seize some evidence. The evidence included a list of female patients who were then questioned during the investigation. Dr. Wolf was then convicted by state court of conspiring to commit abortions, in which he appealed. In October 19, 1948 Wolf argued that the evidence that was searched and
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), Terry and two other men were noticed by police officers to be hanging around a store, and seemed to possibly be “casing a job.” They were afraid the men might be getting ready to rob the store, due to their appearance and their actions. An officer stopped the men and frisked them. They found guns on them, and arrested them (Oyez, n.d.).
Kenneth Edelin was a 35 year old third year medical resident at the Boston City Hospital. This hospital was known for many poor coming into it. This was also a place for research. By this time research was still being conducted on fetuses and embryos. When a patient came to the hospital for an abortion she also signed a waiver for them to test on her. They called her “Alice Roe” and she was only 17 years old but had the consent of her mother to proceed with the abortion.This patient was estimated by the supervisor over the residents, Hugh Holtrop, to be about twenty-two weeks pregnant but the other residents Enrique Giminez and Steve Teich disagreed. They estimated that she was about twenty-four weeks pregnant. Edlein was put in charge of doing the
Oddly, physicians brought abortion into the public’s eye. These physicians formed a pro-life movement arguing the moral knowledge that the public didn’t seem to have (12, Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood p. 000). According to the source, women didn’t understand that the embryo is a living being. With their lack of knowledge about things, they came “murderesses” and the only way this could be solved was to outlaw abortion. They kept the idea that abortion was murder, but, at the same time, they also said that only they could decide when an abortion should occur. With their accomplishment, in 1900, every state had a law that stated that abortion is illegal except for when the mother’s life is in danger. But the weakness of this was that the law didn’t specifically define the danger a mother should be in.
On October 19, 1927, a “feebleminded,” young woman was robbed. This young woman’s name is Carrie Buck and her ability to conceive children was taken from her without her consent or knowledge. This decision would not only impact those already affected by unauthorized sterilization, but for those whom would later be sterilized. The Supreme Court’s ruled the sterilization of Carrie Buck to be constitutional on the grounds of it being better for society, better for the individual, and eugenic evidence.
This paper discusses the contrast of two landmark United States (U.S.) Supreme Court cases that helped to clearly define how the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution is interpreted, and analyzes the difference between the “Constitution” and “Constitutional Law.” Two cases that are referenced in this analysis are (1) Katz v. United States, 386 U.S. 954 (U.S. March 13, 1967), and (2) Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (U.S. June 4, 1928), which differed in ruling; one eventually overturning the other. Finally, a conclusion is drawn as to the importance of these case decisions in the lives of Americans.
In 1962, a mother, Sherri Finkbine traveled to Sweden with her husband, after her request for abortion in the U.S was denied. In 1967, England ended up loosening its own restrictions on abortion laws that permitted women to have the procedure as long as they had written permission from two physicians. This cause many American women to travel to England to get the procedure done. In 1969, groups of young women in Chicago form an underground system, known as Jane. The purpose of Jane was to help women find affordable, safe, but illegal abortions here in the U.S. After a while, many of these women ended up learning how to perform abortion procedures and did about 12,000 of these from 1969 to 1973. In 1970, the states, Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington annulled their anti- abortion laws allowing licensed physicians to perform abortions. In order for women to get an abortion in these states, they had to be at least a resident of these states for about thirty days. New York was the only state out of these not requiring any source of residency, so many women traveled to this state to get a legal abortion. However, this option was only available to a small number of women who could afford traveling expenses and finding a place to
On the morning of July 4, 1954, Marilyn Sheppard was violently beaten in her home in Bay Village, Ohio, on the shore of Lake Erie. She was four months pregnant and had been felled by 35 vicious blows (Quade). Right away Sam Sheppard was accused of being the victim to do this. Sheppard had told investigators that he had been asleep downstairs and was awakened by his wife’s screams. Sheppard said when he went upstairs and entered the room he was knocked unconscious by the intruder. He denied any involvement and described his battle with the killer he described as “bushy-haired” (Linder). After a police investigation, Dr. Sam Sheppard was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. With the hectic media covering it, they were quick in decision that it was him that committed the murder. This was an unfair trial, ruined a man’s life, and gave him no time for a career.
January 22, 1973, a monumental ordeal for all of the United States had come about, which was that abortion was legalized. It was the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade that made us take a turn into this political issue. In this case Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) was an unmarried woman who wasn’t permitted to terminate her unborn child, for the Texas criminal abortion law made it impossible to perform an abortion unless it was putting the mother’s health in danger. Jane Roe was against doing it illegally so she fought to do it legally. In the court cases ruling they acknowledged that the lawful right to having privacy is extensive enough to cover a woman’s decision on whether or not she should be able to terminate her pregnancy.
In 1900 a law was passed banning women from having an abortion. Before 1900, abortions were a common practice and usually performed by a midwife, but doctors saw this as a financial threat and pushed for a law making abortions illegal. From 1900 until 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a women’s right to have an abortion, women who wanted to have an abortion did so secretly. These secret abortions were performed
During the mid-19th Century there were no actual federal law regulating abortions, many states were against it and banned the whole practice entirely, except when the life of the mother was in danger. However there were some states that made no exception, not even to save the mother’s life. A lot of women argued that it was unconstitutional, and found other ways to have one. Whether it was by an unlicensed physician or performed the procedure themselves. Most illegal abortions were dangerous because they were performed in unsanitary conditions. As a result, many states such as the United States and New York began to legitimize or ban abortions complete...
Cornelia Hughes Dayton, the author of the article “Taking the Trade: Abortion and Gender Relations in an Eighteenth-Century New England Village,” found in Women and Health in America, describes the common argument as to why abortion may have taken place. In the article Dayton discusses a couple, Sarah Grosvenor and Amasa Sessions, that had a sexual relationship that led to pregnancy, and then abortion in 1742, a time when abortion was not illegal, but was not accepted completely by society. The issue in the Grosvenor-Sessions case was that Grosvenor died after John Hallowell performed an abortion. A case was initiated three years after Sarah’s death to investigate her death as a murder committed by Hallowell, Sessions, Sarah’s sister, and her cousin (the last three being accessories to the murder). Sarah Grosvenor’s sister and cousin’s charges were dropped and no punishment occurred. For S...
In 1973, Texas had a state law that banned abortion except when it was necessary to save the life of the mother. A woman named Norma McCorvey
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”.