Case Study: Carrer V. Arizona

FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.

United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory

The center of a circle can never be located with only one line running through the shape. There must be multiple lines, each one making it more clear where the center of the circle is. Analogously, the murderer of a case can never be indicted with only one piece of evidence pointing at them. There must be multiples indications, each one making it more clear who the murderer is. When Oreste Fulminante confessed to the first-degree murder of his stepdaughter, Jeneane Fulminante, the trial court used his confession as evidence to sentence him to death. However, since his confession was “coerced”, the Supreme Court decided to retry Fulminante’s case without the use of the “coerced” confession as evidence. Arizona v. Fulminante manifests

Following the termination of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team on June 1, 1992; plaintiffs sought reinstatement on the basis of a Title IX violation ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Colo. 1993) :: Justia," 1993). The girls found terminating their sports team to be unjust. The plaintiffs argued financial difficulties and lack of participation and support for the boy’s baseball team did not warrant termination of the softball program. They also argued getting recruited to play Division I level softball afforded them a better chance at improving their future. Most girls had a substantial amount of scholarship money that helped them afford college ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has charged Nathan Moss (Mr. Moss) with 1 count of violating a no contact order that Claire Cohen (Ms. Cohen) put out against him. Nathan Moss and Claire Cohen are both seniors at Plymouth South High School and dated for about 10 months prior to Ms. Cohen placing a protective order against Mr. Moss.

After the death of Senator Sam Foley, Hubert Hopper, a governor, was pressured to select a newly appointed senator.

According to police reports, Mr. Jonathan Hartshorn was involved in a single vehicle non-injury accident when the vehicle he was operating rear ended another vehicle in the drive thru lane at 1212 S Rock Rd. Officers were called to the accident and made contact with Mr. Hartshorn, who had moved to 1219 S Rock Rd. Officer Reser made contact with Mr. Hartshorn and detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Hartshorn. Mr. Hartshorn also had slurred speech. Officer Reser had Mr. Hartshorn perform the sobriety tests, which he failed. Mr. Hartshorn submitted to a breath test which showed a BAC of

The US Supreme court wanted to deem what Native Americans were in the evolution of the United States of America, in just they really wanted to change the stance on tribal sovereignty that fit the US. Before set laws the only ways to deal with Native Americans were through wars, bullied negotiations and forced treaties to acquire all land. Treaties functioned as the most important documentation describing the relationship between Europeans and Natives. This continued until the courts began to bring specific meaning to these laws that were recognized through the courts of the US. A land title definition to the Europeans politics was that Indian’s had land to give and was for private individuals to receive. So there was a need to regulate these

Ernesto Miranda was arrested on March 31, 1963 and charged with kidnapping and rape. The arresting officer(s) transported Miranda to the police station where they conducted an interrogation, and during this time Miranda’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated. Miranda was interrogated for two hours after which he wrote a confession to the crimes he was being accused of. Once Miranda went to trial and the confession were presented in court, the defense attorney advised the judge that the confession should not be used as evidence in the case due to the fact that the police officers admitted that they did not advise Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during his interrogation.

The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona is one of many cases that made an impact on the future of our criminal justice system. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and accused of kidnapping a raping a young woman. He was interrogated for two hours and signed a confession that later formed the basis of his later conviction on the charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's conviction was unconstitutional because the interrogation occurred before the suspect was advised of his rights. Additionally, any evidence obtained before the suspect is advised of his rights cannot be used against him. The Miranda rights are to ensure the protection of individual rights was guaranteed under the Constitution. To ensure that proper

In the landmark court case, Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that when a person is taken into custody of the police, or has been deprived of their freedom of action in any significant way, they must be advised of their constitutional rights. Reason being is because the court realized that in custodial interrogations, the compulsion for a person to potentially incriminate their self is apparent. Therefore, without proper safeguards, the process of custodial interrogation would compel an individual to speak where they would otherwise not do so freely. In the years following Miranda, there has been considerable controversy regarding the extent of Miranda’s prophylactic shield, and under what circumstances the safeguards of Miranda will apply to juveniles.

In the case of the State v. Wells, Defendant Paul Ellis Wells was charged with a DUI in California for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana and causing serious bodily injury to three other victims. At first glance, this case seems obvious that the defendant’s negligence at the wheel was caused by him being intoxicated. Further research shows that the defendant was diagnosed by a doctor as being prediabetic. In my opinion, the actus reus elements of the crime of DUI would be that the defendant did test positive for marijuana in a blood test conducted which in any state would be considered a DUI because it is obviously a crime to operate a motor vehicle under any substance that can alter your mind. On the other hand,

The Miranda rights were created in 1966 by the United States Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona. The purpose of the Miranda warning is to protect all suspects’ “Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer self-incriminating questions”(Miranda Rights, 2009). The Miranda rights are done once an arrest has been made or before the questioning occurs and then an officer is free to ask questions for the investigation. The suspect can either remain silent or answer the questions being asked. Suspects must be told their constitutional right to have an attorney and against self- incrimination before the questions.

On June 26, 2003, a Supreme Court decision reserved a Texas law preventing consensual, special sexual activity between lesbians and guys. The Court ruled, in Lawrence v Texas. The court mentioned the essential right to confidentiality, and also the right of lesbians and gays have enjoy equal protection on the law. The opinion also reserved the disreputable 1986 resolution in the case of Hardwick v Bowers that the court had upheld a like Georgia homosexualism statute.

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) The Court held that a defendant must prove there is a legitimate expectation of privacy for a search to be challenged.