Case Study: Nathan Moss V.

Christopher Simmons was 17 years old when he committed murder, he was arrested in September of 1993 after bragging to his school mates about killing an individual. Simmons thought because of his age the court will be lenient on him. The jury easily found him guilty, he was facing the death penalty. His attorney argued that the courts should take his age into consideration when sentencing Simmons, after all he was a minor when the murder was committed he was not old enough to vote or legally by a drink. The jury sentenced Simmons to death by lethal injection the deciding factor for them was the brutal nature that the crime of how the crime was committed. His case was then appealed to the Supreme court his attorney’s citing his

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.

The result from Gideon. V Wainwright court case affected the decision of the betts. Bradley which eventually was overruled. Also that justice black associated who wrote the pinion for the court called this an “obvious truth” where that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel.

Shortly after the establishment of the Kansas Nebraska Act, there was a slight moment of opportunity for the nation to end the long-lasting controversial issue of slavery once and for all, the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, but again, the division of the two regions grew fonder. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave accompanied his slave owners to several different territories, including Wisconsin and Illinois, two slave free states at the time. After Dred Scott’s slave owner died, he attempted to sue for his freedom, being it he had stepped on “free man” soil. Although he had to return back to Missouri, the second he walked onto a free state territory he no longer identified himself as a slave. However, the ruling in the end only strengthened

R/s July 3rd-8th Danielle (4) and Josiah (5) were staying in Georgia with Judy and Felicia Wilson. R/s Felicia beat Mariah with an electrical cord and Mariah has scratches on her back and bruised buttock. R/s Danielle (mom) took the child to ER and trying to press charges against Felicia.

David Leon Riley was pulled over by a police officer for a driving a vehicle with expired license tags. The police officer who initially stopped Riley discovered that his driver’s license had also been suspended. Following department procedures, the police officer then continued to impound his vehicle. Before the car was impounded, the police officers are required to do an inventory of all of the components of the vehicle to prevent being liable for any missing items after the car is recovered, as well as, to discover any illegal or dangerous items. During the vehicle search, officers found two handguns under the hood of Riley’s vehicle and then proceeded to arrest Riley for the possession of firearms. When the arresting officer conducted a person’s search of Riley, it was found that Riley had a cell phone in his pocket. The cell phone was taken by police and taken back to the station where an analyst discovered data on Riley’s cell phone that was ultimately used to tie Riley to a drive-by shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier. Based on the pictures and video recovered by the detective analyst specializing in gangs, and ballistics tests conducted on the two hand guns found in Riley’s vehicle, the state of California charged Riley in connection with the shooting. The arresting officer accessed data stored on Riley’s cell phone and noticed a repeated term associated with a street gang.

Issue: Do warrantless arrest and no probable cause determination allow for Police to detain a suspect for an extended amount of time?

In the Pat Dunn V. Chris LePuck case I am in favor of the defendant, Chris LePuck. The plaintiff, Pat Dunn, an experienced hockey player, knowingly and voluntary entered the hockey game. By nature of the sport, hockey games require players to have contact with each other so Dunn had the responsibility to assume the risk when he entered the game. The plaintiff also failed to wear a helmet during the game making him negligent. In relation to self defense, the plaintiff intentionally tripped and punched the defendant without the defendants permissions making it reasonable for the defendant to protect himself and hit Dunn with the stick. In consideration of the law of comparative fault, the plaintiff’s injuries were the result of the legal fault of the plaintiff because the plaintiff is more than fifty percent legally at fault for the accident and damaged he faced. In proving that Chris LePuck is not liable for any damages or injuries Pat Dunn incurred, five similar court

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

Roper v. Simmons was a supreme court case that was decided in 2004 which dealt with whether it is against the constitution, and falls under cruel and unusual punishment, the execute someone who is under the age of 18. This case was particularly important as it dealt with something that many people were against entirely: the death penalty. A variation of this issue was decided nearly twenty years earlier in Thompson v. Oklahoma when it was decided in a five-to-three ruling that it was not constitutional to execute anyone under the age of 16. There have also been many other landmark cases that have challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty for certain parties such as in Atkins v. Virginia which was decided just three

Bound v. Smith was a North Carolina case that was filed by three (3) inmates against state administrators under section 1983,1. The facts of the case alleged that the inmates has been deprived of access to the courts in violation of their fourteen (14th) amendment rights by the state’s failure to provide legal research facilities (Shaw, 1978).

Miller v. California was one of the first attempts to define what would constitute as obscene matter in the eyes of the law. The prosecution came about because Miller started a mail campaign to advertise the sale of adult material. Some of the recipients found the material offensive and alerted the local police. This distribution was found in violation of a California act prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. The court case decided that obscene materials did not fall under the protection of the First Amendment in a 5-to-4 decision. Miller v. California also lead to the modification of both Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, which was a case that had originally set the tests for obscenity. This case set the standards

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.

CW showed up to IVA McCoy's "home" for an announced home visit. CW asked Iva how everything was going. Iva stated that it was going really well. She also stated that she had paid off her fines and the only thing she needed to do at this point is to finish parenting classes. Iva was not engaged in the conversation. You know this because the television was on and she continuously looked at it. She would also ask "What" indicating that she was not engaged. CW then asked Iva who home she was living in. Iva stated that this was her boyfriends house, Daniel Pivarski. She then stated "this is not something new, we have actually been dating for around 8 months". CW then asked Iva how long she has known him. Iva stated that she has known him for a long time because he is one of her old friends X husband. CW then told Iva that she needs to inform the CW whenever someone new is in the picture. CW then told Iva that she needed to run a background check on him

Lorie wanted to report that her nephew , Joseph Gray (9 years old) observed his father masturbating at their residence sometime last night. Lorie stated her sister, Beverly Gray (parent) and father, Thomas Whitehead III (suspect) were in a argument and at some point Thomas started to masturbate in front of Joseph. Lorie advised she heard this information third party from her mother as they were speaking earlier this morning. Lorie who was outraged about the incident reported to HQ to report the accusation. Lorie advised that Beverly was