Case Brief : Masciale V. United States 356 U.s.

I agree with court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Marder’s grievance against Paramount. Ms. Marder made a contract with Paramount and sold away the rights to her story. The contract between Ms.Marder and Paramount was legal and binding; the courts could not favor her. Paramount became the legal own of Ms. Marder’s story at the time of its purchase; the price they paid for her story, although quite small, was the amount she had agreed to.

When the case finally made it to the Supreme Court, five justices voted in favor of Hayes, who was the district attorney. Four of the justices agreed that Branzburg had no right to confidentiality and should have given the court the identities they had requested. One of the Supreme Court justices handed down a dissenting opinion. The opinion handed down stated that Branzburg’s rights should have been protected unless the court could prove three things: First they had to prove probable cause that Branzburg had information to a crime that the Grand Jury was investigating. Secondly the court had to prove that there was no other alternative to obtaining the desired information on the two individuals identities except from Branzburg himself. Finally the court had to prove that there was strong desire for the government to

In the supreme court Muehler v. Mena case, Mena sued the officers in federal district court for violating her 4th amendments rights. The fourth amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The officers heard that there was that she was affiliated with gang violence and deadly weapons so they searched the house that Mena and others were in. The officers did things like handcuff Mena and the others. They also questioned her about her immigration status. She believed this violated her 4th amendment rights that should protect her from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Mena tried suing the officers in federal district court for violating her Fourth Amendment rights after this. She felt

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

It is almost impossible for justice to be served when the trail was a mess. There was a 12 hour police interrogation of Jessie Misskelley. He is intellectually disabled, causing him to give a false confession. The police should have known the psychology of false confession and shouldn't have interrogated Mr. Misskelley for 12 hours. The sentences were based on hearsay testimony of witnesses who heard the boys talk about the murders: “...the defendant had been motivated as members of a satanic cult” (Robertson 4). Hearsay doesn't prove anything in the court of law. The jury is supposed to know nothing about the case; but of course one juror already had his mind set on his conviction. This juror

She stated that base on the command log entry the defendants’ money was counted in her presence. According to the command log entry, Mr. Joshua Riley was arrested and subsequently released on a voided arrest. I asked Sgt. Lavelle to read in the record the account of money that Mr. Riley had on his person and if all of his money was returned to him upon his released. Sgt. Lavelle stated that based on the command log entry, Mr. Riley had had a total of $178.00 and $98.00 was returned and she doesn’t recall if all his money was returned to him or not. As for Mr. Carlton Smith a total of $205.26 was counted in front of her and $95.26 was returned. Shortly after, Mr. Smith was removed to the hospital and he was escorted by PO Osipowich via EMS. Sgt. Lavelle doesn’t recall if the remaining balance of Mr. Smith money was

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

In Ohio, year 1957 a minor incident turned to be the headlines of Ohio news. My client, Ms.Mapp has been put under trial because of possessing obscene material but those materials were obtained through illegal doing. Officers had thought that a bombing suspect was in her house. They had asked to come in but Mapp had not admitted them to enter without a warrant. The officers had come by her house three hours later with a paper that they claimed to be a warrant. That paper was then snatched by Mapp and used later on in court. The officers then handcuffed Mapp and proceeded in her house with a fake warrant and continued a search and seizure in her house for the refugee but was not found but in their investigation.They stumbled upon obscene materials which she is guilty of as of now. She shouldn’t be convicted of her charges because there was illegal evidence found without a warrant. She should be free of her charges because putting her on trial will show the Fourth amendment no true purpose for the

Reversed. Mapp’s rights had been violated and evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures are not admissible in a criminal prosecution. In fact this evidence is “fruit of the poisonous tree”.

I enjoy reading your post. I believe that the detectives actions could have adversely affected the case. Personally, I do believe that the recorder interview was admissible, but I did not play a big role with the verdict due to the fact that Dalia did not confess. I am glad to see that the detectives did read her Miranda rights and did not force the suspect to

Reasoning: In the courts decided that the Agent wasn’t responsible that the agent was doing his job to have him arrested for sales of heroin.

Ms. Dollree Mapp, her lawyer and the majority of Supreme Court Justices believed the search by the police was illegal. Mapp and her lawyer argued the police officer presented no valid warrant or explanation at the scene. Justice Clark explained, “At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for” (https://goo.gl/W2N1xT). Moreover, Justice Clark stated that the evidence gathered in the search couldn’t be used as evidence since it violated Mapp’s Fourth Amendment rights (https://goo.gl/Qnn2c). This means, the search was considered unconstitutional and any evidence brought up during the search was considered “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Furthermore, Justice Clark noted

On 10/28/2016 I Officer Mather was called to the office of Assistant Principal Lori Mc Nicol of Goddard Jr. High. Upon entering the office I was notified by Mc Niocl that on 10/12/2016 there was a student identified as Mason Ridge Amason DOB: 07/12/2004 ID# 860200 reported that his phone had been stolen in gym class. A Galaxy S5 silver black in color with AT&T service provider. At that time Mc Nicol reported there was no leads to the phone and Mason father was advised to turn the service off.

Even though they called a lot more of objections and yelled out they still are the better choice than the prosecutors because the defense showed us how Bill and Sam caused no harm to Red Chief and protected him from the escapees (Bill Protected him) and also because the prosecutors kept saying the same thing over and over, but the defense had something new every time. And I voted not guilty because Red Chief followed Bill and Sam and had the most fun he's ever had because his father never has time for him. Even though the prosecutors won the case the defense had the most credible evidence. I would have to say they both used the same amount

In law, we desire to see whether or not the person truly intended to do the crime. We desire to know the amount of agency she had within herself to commit or not commit crime. If she did not have this agency, she most likely was entrapped and does not deserve punishment. The people who are not entrapped are those who would have committed the crime regardless of the involvement by the police. Therefore, they cannot be permitted to entrapment for a legal defense because they themselves initiated the causal change of guilt. The cause was not initiated by the police; instead, the police were simply able to deduce from certain circumstances that a crime was taking place and an arrest was inevitable.