Brady V. Maryland, 373 U.s. 83

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

In the Marbury Vs. Madison’s case Justice John Marshall represented the case and I strongly believe that his points were solid and worth to be granted true and rational. John Marshall’s argument is that the acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution are not laws and therefore are not progressed into law to the courts, and ultimately the judicial boards’ first responsibility is always to practice and to make firm of the Constitution.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Brady was convicted of murder in the first degree even though he proclaimed not have committed the murder and that his partner in crime carried out the deed, no pun intended. His accomplice had admitted to committing the murder in a separate trial which Brady learned of later on. The confession of his accomplice was suppressed and not shared with the defense as it had been requested. After the defense learned of this suppression, an appeal was filed and remanded the case for retrial of sentencing only. The United States Supreme Court upheld the decision and confirmed while the withheld evidence did violate the due process clause, it didn't prove innocence and a granting just a new sentencing trial was legal.

This violation being in the form of a videotape, which could have completely changed the outcome of the case. On this videotape there was a full confession from Ricky Simmons. Barney Ward knew all about this videotape (as it was shared with him along with all other information) yet he chose not to bring this evidence to the table and share it with the jury. Judge Jones ruled that the tape was not a Brady violation. “The tape was not really hidden; it was handed over after the trial, sort of a delayed submission (Grisham pg. 258)”.This one piece of evidence alone would have been enough to change the opinions of the jury and change the outcome of the trail. However because Barney Ward did NOT show this video, this is a clear violation of Mr. Williamson’s 6th Amendment, which guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions there must be an “effective” assistance of counsel (Cole and Smith pg. 84). In my opinion at no point in this trial was Ron Williamson’s attorney an “effective assistance of counsel”.

These amendments make it known that all people have the right to choose whether or not to speak when being questioned, consult with an attorney, be tried by and unbiased jury and be granted a public attorney if necessary (Document E). In the case of Ernesto Miranda, he did not know he had these rights. Therefore, the court could not see his confession as admissible. He was unaware that he could keep quiet if he wanted to and instead his inquisitors pushed him to confess. He did not know he had the right to a lawyer and therefore was on his own deciding how to go about the threat to his future. It has always been tradition that prosecutors could not take confessions into court if investigators used coercion or torture of any kind to gain the confession. This has been in place since the 1600s, as shown by the Laws of Connecticut Colony at the time, which stated “no man shall be forced … to confess any crime against himself” (Document B). This tradition has been present throughout centuries and has only been being more refined and updated as time goes on. The Miranda rulings allowed for yet another opportunity to revamp these rights not only by making sure that people have their rights, but also by making sure that they know explicitly that they have the

Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366; 124 S. Ct. 795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9198

The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell in 1997 is a lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that offered the eugenic sterilization for individuals regarded genetically unfit. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Virginia’s statute regarding sterilization provided the basis for enactment of similar laws across the United States and subsequent sterilization of 65,000 Americans without their approval or that of their family members. Notably, the ruling of this case was based on the concept of feeblemindedness, which is no longer applicable in medical terminology. Actually, this case primarily involved state-enforced eugenic sterilization for individuals considered feebleminded or genetically substandard in certain ways. The case provides considerable insights concerning eugenics and enforced sterilization in the United States and significant concerns on whether genetics should be used for any king of legal decision.

It was insisted upon as a defensive weapon of society and society's patriots against laws and proceedings that did not have the sanction of public opinion. In all the cases that have made the formative history of this privilege and have lent to it its color, all that the accused asked for was a fair trial before a fair and impartial jury of his peers, to whom he should not be forced by the state or sovereignty to confess his guilt of the fact charged. Once before a jury, the person accused needed not to concern himself with the inferences that the jury might draw from his silence, as the jurors themselves were only too eager to render verdicts of not guilty in the cases alluded

This the first case in United States history to be considered unconstitutional. The significance in this case is that it helped define the original jurisdiction of the

On February 24, 1803 Chief Justice John Marshall and the rest of the Supreme Court decided on the seemingly insignificant case of Marbury v. Madison. While ruling the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, Judicial Review was established. Granting the Supreme Court the power to rule acts of the Legislative and/or Executive Branch of government unconstitutional, hence serving as a landmark case that further legitimatized the Judicial Branch as a separate, but balanced branch of government. Marbury v. Madison has been used as a very important precedent throughout our history with 165 acts of Congress deemed unconstitutional as of 2010.

Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution protect thSe right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? This questions Due Process of Law.

INTRODUCTION: In Terry vs. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the question of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure was brought before the court system. The case looked at the admissibility of evidence discovered during search and seizure, in particular, as it relates to street encounters and investigations between citizens and officers of the law. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the decision of the 5th Ohio Court of Appeals. This case was of particular importance it helped establish what type of search and seizure behavior was lawful and unlawful on the part of officers, and set clear guidelines. The rulings in this case pertain to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cornell University Law School, n.d.).

McCulloch v. Maryland case goes back to the 1800s when the State of Maryland, being unhappy with the rising power of the Bank of the United States, enacted a statute imposing a tax on all banks operating in Maryland not chartered by the state. The State of Maryland sued James McCulloch, the cashier of the bank of the Baltimore branch, for issuing bank notes without obeying to the state’s law and for failing to pay the taxes to the state. The main issues that were raised during the case were: whether or not the Congress had the power to create a bank under the Constitution and whether or not the State of Maryland had the power to impose taxes on a federal bank which was created with authorized powers under the Constitution. The case was