The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).
A Bill of Rights recognizes and lists the rights individuals have and protects those rights from governmental interference, unless of course there is a valid reason for government action to take place. While the Bill of Rights for the Georgia Constitution and the United States Constitution do just that, they do have some distinctive similarities and differences. For example, the major difference I see is the fact that the Georgia Bill of Rights is found in Article one and consists of four sections and forty paragraphs, while the United States Bill of Rights consist of the fist ten amendments of the Constitution. This means that the United States Constitution did not originally list the rights of individuals, until anti-federalists fought hard enough to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Another difference is that fact that the Georgia Bill of Rights is more protective of individual liberties than the changes made to the Constitution of the United States. For example, I saw that some freedoms such as the “Freedom of Conscience”, which can be found in paragraph three of section on of the Georgia Constitution, are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. There are many other differences considering the length difference of the two Bill of Rights; however, both documents clearly uphold the reasoning behind having a Bill of Rights. Both Bill of Rights list constitutional protection for individuals, and gives
The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a
By having knowledge of the chromium in the water supply, PG&E should have been required to let the people know that were affected by it. By not telling the citizens, they were withholding information that affected these people’s lives. Because a risk was created, consequences came, and nothing was done to prevent such injuries that did occur, PG&E should have been considered negligent.
Hannah Patrick, one has only to look at some of the cases such as Coker v. Georgia to feel that the death penalty does not violate the Eight Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court says it is excessive punishment for the rape of an adult woman and that it violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. In Coker v. Georgia, the defendant raped a woman and stabbed her to death. Eight months later he kidnapped another woman, raped her twice, and abandoned her to die after biting her severely. While he was serving multiple life terms in prison, he escaped and kidnapped, raped, and robbed a third woman at knifepoint (LeSage, 1978). I do not see how you can read about this case and decide as the U.S. Supreme Court did.
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.
Does the Alabama statute 16-1-20.1, allowing a period of silence for meditation or voluntary prayer violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause that is applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment?
The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.
There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer
Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the
In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over
Troy Gregg was charged with committing armed robbery and murder. The jury found him guilty of both and sentenced him to death. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, appealing that his capital sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Court's earlier ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972) which struck down state systems that afforded juries sweeping discretion in imposing the death penalty would spell the end of capital punishment in the United States. Many states, including Georgia, however, responded to the Furman ruling by passing new death penalty laws. The Georgia General Assembly, however,
First and foremost Police officers are instructed during their grooming at the police academy to use deadly force when stopping a fleeing suspect, however Police Officers are also taught, but when there are no other options. As we have learned from a landmark case Tennessee V. Garner, That the use of lethal force by law enforcement in the United States is subject to the 1985 Tennessee v. Garner decision. Under “Garner, deadly force may be permissible if “the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has charged a criminal offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical injury”. Upon watching the video several times it appears to me that suspect Scott was not in