California Court Case Analysis

In the case of Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), “the jury found Hurtado guilty of murder of Jose Stuardo at his trial and trial court sentence Hurtado to death” (Ingram p. 48). After the verdict was read, Hurtado through his defending attorney contest that the verdict was invalid because Hurtado under the Fifth Amendment has a right to a grand jury trial. However, the Supreme Court rejected Hurtado’s defense argument. Therefore, in this essay I am going to discuss the reason the Court decided the case the way it did and if the right to a grand jury indictment an essential of due process.

The influx of inmates in the late 1970s through 1980s led to unsustainable prions condition that violated inmate’s rights granted by the Eight Amendment. As the budgets were being exhausted, transpired the issues of inmate’s poor medical treatment, abusive physical security, and unsuitable physical conditions (Newman and Scott 2013, 547). In the 1976 case of Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court of the United States “established that an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights were violated if prison personnel demonstrated “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner's “serious illness or injury” (Newsman and Scott 2012, 548). The increased volume of filed lawsuits led to the passing of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which “ targeted frivolous lawsuits by limiting waivers for the requirement that inmates pay filing fees,

Vote: 7/2. Justia Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court. In which Rehnquist, C.J joined and White, Blackmum, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter Joined. Steven J. filed an opinion in which Marshal J. joined.

addressed the violation of inmates rights to adequate health care. Believe it or not, "prison

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the growing distress, deeming California’s state prisons unconstitutionally crowded. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled out that California’s 33 state prisons have become too overcrowded to the point where there are no sufficient medical and mental health care available (Realignment AB 109, 2013). The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the 33 state prisons are violating constitutional exclusions, under the Eighth Amendment, against unfamiliar punishment and brutality, says the American Legislative Exchange Council, an American organization producing model policies for state legislators (ALEC, 2010).

In the 2011 case of Brown v. Plata Judge Kennedy stated that the prisons in California were beyond overcrowded which lead to lack of proper medical and mental health care, which violated the cruel and unusual clause of the Eight Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (Brown v. Plata, 2011, 1). It stated that California prisons were built to house approximately 80,000 inmates but by the times it went to the Supreme Court it had nearly doubled the original number (Newman and Scott, 2012, 548). It also stated that a prison which deprives prisoners of adequate medical care is an inadequate living facility for any human (Brown v. Plata, 2011, 13). Failure to comply with adequate medical services would cause inmates physical torment which in return would violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause (Newman and Scott, 2012, 549). As a result of overcrowding and lack of proper mental and medical health care the State of California was ordered to reduce their prison population by one-third by May 2013 (Owen and Mobley, 2012, 47).

Facts: Abel Lopez was attacked in “Los Angeles in October 2009”. While cashing a check he spoke to a man who was identified as petitioner Walter Fernandez. After being asked a series of questions by Walter Abel was attacked and chased. The reason being is that Abel was in the territory of the “Drifters”, a gang that wasn’t very welcoming to people being in there territory. While running Abel called 911 but Fernandez stopped him by whistling causing four men to appear and attack Lopez as well as stealing any valuables in his possession which consisted of “$400 in cash” as well as a cell phone and wallet. The police arrived and the incident was suspected to have have gang involvement.

The United States Supreme Court ruled that prison overcrowding in California was equivalent to cruel and unusual punishment. This decision recharged a long-standing disagreement among scholars and politicians as to whether or not courts should intervene to protect make changes. Some believe this is a matter or the well-being of those unable to make decisions for themselves. Others believe this is not a top priority and by forcing states to improve state institutions, the already costly industry will have cost increase. The journal also discusses the economic effects reform has had. Concluding that they have made positive changes at a slightly higher expense. The changes made by the state made the facilities closer to “humane” by court standards. (7)

The article focuses on the overcrowding in California prisons. In 2011 the U.S. Supreme found in the case of Brown vs. Plata that California prison system has preventable deaths occurring every five to six days. There has been a shortage in medical staff within the California prison system. This storage range from 20% doctors to 44% x-ray technicians. California prisons are built to house 80,000 people the prisons have twice as many inmates. California prisons have packed gymnasiums containing double and triple bunks. The article states this living condition is a make shift dormitory. When beating deaths occurs the staff has no idea for hours. Because California has allowed there prisons to maintain in these condition it has been found

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action. It found diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest and allowed race to be one of several factors in college admission policy, but rejected specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the UC Davis School of Medicine. Although the court had outlawed segregation in schools, it had not resolved the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs initiated by universities. Proponents deemed such programs necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case

Looking at all of these different cases, the same question seemed to be asked. The court needed to decide if the fourth amendment was broken because of the searches the officers did. The courts looked at the vehicle as one part and the luggage, box, or bag separate in each case. In order for the search in California v. Acevedo to be legal the court had to find that the probable cause that they had to search the vehicle, covered every area that the car possessed. While analyzing this case, I thought about what the officers should have done in the situation in order to make their search efficient. If the officers asked Charles if they could search the car and Charles consented to the search this would have helped in court. In my opinion, I feel

An opinion piece was found in Newsweek online with a blaring headline: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL HORRORS OF PRISON OVERCROWDING. The article is preceded with an illustration of a jail cell in Texas where a prisoner would wait to be executed. The author starts her article off with a hypothetical scenario involving convicts being executed entirely based on their healthiness. She went on to reference the 2011 Supreme Course Brown v. Plata. Mayeux mentions how the most functional of prisons have a difficult time employing certified medical staff. This prison in California was built to house only 80,000. But somehow it ended up with twice that amount. During these conditions, the Supreme Court declared a court order for California to decrease the

To render justice case by case is the primary task of our courts. Other courts and branches of government also, the social and economic fabrics of our lives are impacted by court decisions. The justice that is done in individual cases helps and aids to bring order to the society in which we live. Parties who are before the court are impacted by our decisions. In criminal matters, court decisions determines whether the accused is guilty or not and if guilty will they suffer financially, be free or go to prison with the possibility of suffering the death penalty. In civil matters, the parties’ rights and their obligations to one another are determined in their court decisions. Future actions are dictated by court decision and can impact the parties’ possessions, finances and livelihood.

The video link is the place the victim is taken to a room within the court building usually and is linked up to the courtroom where the trial is taking place, like skyping. So, the victim sits in front of a television screen and the camera is focused on them, for the barristers and sometimes judge, in the court to ask questions and the victim can answer, without being in the actual court. This special measure enables the victim to be in a safe environment away from the courtroom. This also in some circumstances can be used when the victim lives a distance away from the court. The victim can use a different court near them to link up with the court which the trial is being held. However, the criticism of this special measure is everyone on

If there is more than one expert giving opinion evidence, it is very common that those opinions are different. As it takes place in this coursework case. This disagreement may be based on differences in theoretical foundations, analyses of data, different approach to the problem or simply, due to one of the experts manipulating with evidence on behalf of one of the sides. What is more, the complexity of the legal system is very complex and can also fuel this perception. For example, when an expert is not aware of data that has been excluded for legal reasons.(Weinstock and Martinez, 2007) In the case given in this coursework, the expert of the insurance company is trying to persuade, that his recommendations would give better solution. If