Analysis Of The Glossip Vs. Gross Court Case

This is the case of Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1975), Gerald Scarpelli and friend Fred Kleckner was arrested in Illinois for burglary of a house. The officer read both of them their constitutional right. Afterward, Scarpelli admitted that he and Kleckner did, in fact, broke into the house and stole merchandise or money. On July 1965, he pleaded guilty to arm robbery in Wisconsin. Later, he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment but, later they suspended his sentence and given him probation for seven years. The grounds for a revocation were that Scarpelli knownly associated with Fred Kleckner, Jr. a known criminal. At the time of the crime it was also noted that Mr. Kleckner, had an arrest for burglary in Deerfield, Illinois (United State Supreme Court Gagnon v. Scarnelli, (1973)

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

My argument is in favor for the defendant in the case between Guiles V. Marineau. After a student continuously wears a controversial and extremely detailed t-shirt received at an anti war rally, the school district and family of the student take their discrepancy to court. I found multiple sources pulled from sources such as, FindLaw's United States Second Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.)., ProCon.org. (2017, November 15), Supreme Court Upholds Vermont Student's Free Speech Rights. (n.d.). and What are the Legal Rights of Children? (n.d.). In the following, the reader will be introduced to the case, the final decision, and my assessment of the case. I have drawn a conclusion, that the School system was in the right in this case and properly

When considering the facts of the Margolin’s lawsuit with the rules of jurisdiction, first one must understand when personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction would be applicable. As stated in the textbook, “Personal Jurisdiction is a court 's power to render a decision affecting the rights of the specific persons before the court. Generally, a court 's power to exercise in personam jurisdiction extends only over a specific geographic region.” (Kubasek, pg.42, 2009). Before a court can decide to implement control over a person, they require a minimum contact within the district in which the court is over. In this case, the minimum contact was established over the internet when Margolin inputted information over the internet that completed the business transaction. Since the contact is through the internet, and not within boundaries of the state of California or Florida, the court can exercise personal jurisdiction Margolin’s lawsuit over Funny Face and Novelty Now (Kubasek, 2009).

The issue at hand in this hearing is that of the constitutionality of the practice of the death penalty. The death penalty is unconstitutional because the consensus of society is not reflecting a view in favor of the death penalty, the death penalty does not follow the theories of punishment and is also much too arbitrary and discriminatory to be used by a democratic society such as the United States of America.

Shah, K., Hanna, J., Shoichet, C. E., & Savidge, M. (2017, January 10). Dylann roof jury: Death

The prosecutors on the trial refused Roof’s offer to life in prison, he was found guilty of 33 counts of federal charges including murder and hate crimes. On December 16, 2016, a jury consisting of nine white and three black people determined in three hours (“Dylann Roof convicted”) that Roof was to be sentenced to death by lethal injection. Prosecutors supported this decision by saying that Roof deserved to die due to the meticulous planning of his attack, his lack of remorse for killing nine innocent people, and his intentions of provoking more violence. The savagery of Roof’s actions made those who oppose the death penalty reconsider their view, many saying that if this was not a case that called for capital punishment, what would

Dylann Roof will face the death penalty. Roof is accused of killing nine people during a Bible study on July 17 at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. Prosecutors are trying to get Roof the death penalty because he has killed more than two people, and other lives were put into risks. Prosecutors also mentioned that Roof does not feel any remorse for the killings that he committed. Roof also have some federal charges, this includes: hate crimes and obstruction of the practice of religion.

There has been a case that has been going on for nineteen moths about a person named Dylann Roof who commuted inhumane act by murdering nine African American church goers due to his racial hatred towards the black community. After a lot of investigation the jury of six whites and three black gave their decision on him last month and he was found guilty of thirty three counts. For this reason the jury decides a death penalty on him even though the victims’ family forgave him. Although, it was certain that the Jury was going to lean toward the death penalty because he didn’t have any witnesses to help him defend and most of all he decided to be a lawyer for himself, which made difficult of proving himself innocent or even reduce the penalty

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

Gibbons V. Ogden, is believed to be a turning point to the supreme court case about the topic of the interstate commerce clause. Ogden, received an special license, that allowed him to utilize a shipping industry, in the state of New York. Thomas Gibbons was the man, that he sued, because he suspected that Ogden business was unlawful. Gibbons, was then considered to run his position by congress.

President and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human rights, Wade Henderson, in his column, “The pursuit of capital punishment for Dylann Roof is a step backwards,” criticize the pursuit of capital punishment as a sentence for a racist-driven criminal case. Mr. Henderson's purpose is to emphasize the negative consequences of pursuing a capital punishment for Dylann Roof's criminal case, which would have an negative impact on the community. He adopts a moralistic tone to appeal to the community's sense of justice and equality.

Candy Carmichael was interviewed on Wednesday, October 25, 2017, at approximately 7:00 P.M. at our office located at 6605 Fifth Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Fl. 33710. Ms. Carmichael is 24 years old, married to our client Herman Fripp. She is a Caucasian female, DOB October 19, 1993 and she lives at 400 North Rome Avenue, Tampa Fl 33606, the home she shares with Mr. Fripp.

Feminist recognized the opportunity the pill gave to gaining equality with men and disputed laws that provided contraceptives for only married couples. Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 and Massachusetts v. Baird in 1972 are two cases that helped to increase the availability of contraceptives in the United States. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut a lawyer was convicted by the state of connecticut for giving contraceptives to a married couple. The Connecticut law that prohibited the use of birth control stated:

Procedural History: The cases arose from the married couple whom were given advice from the Executive Director. The Executive Director of Planned Parenthood gave the information and advice was based on how to prevent conception along with material to be used by the wife.