Case Study: Sell V. United States

It is important to note that medical malpractice does not violate the eighth amendment. Furthermore, the medical malpractice was done by Nurse Rodgers, not BJCI. Nurse Rodgers’ medical malpractice is a completely separate case altogether, and that separate case is not what we are here for today. Instead, we are here today to determine whether or not BJCI has violated Emerson Jones’ eighth amendment right. The Prosecution hopes to wrongfully convict the Buckeye Juvenile Correctional Institute for a crime they did not commit. We cannot let such injustice

Facts: Antoine Jones (defendant), a nightclub owner in the District of Columbia was suspected for drug trafficking by the FBI and Metropolitan Police Department task force. As a joint task-force investigation, the FBI applied for a warrant that authorized the use of an electronic tacking device on the Jeep Grand Cherokee registered to Jones’s wife. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued the warrant, in which authorized an installation of the device on Jones’s vehicle within in the District of Columbia and and within 10 days of the issuance of the warrant. However, the government did not install the device on the undercarriage of Jones’s vehicle until the eleventh day

Antoine Jones is an owner of a nightclub in the District of Columbia, and he is suspected of trafficking narcotics. The FBI and Metropolitan Police Department, after using various investigative techniques, obtained a warrant to install an electronic tracking device on the vehicle of Jones’s wife within 10 days and in the District of Columbia. On the 11th day, in a parking lot in Maryland, the government installed the GPS system on the vehicle. They tracked the vehicle’s movements for 28 days. Jones was later convicted in March 2007, and in that trial, the jury found him guilty and the District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment. Jones appealed to the appellate court, arguing that the use of

The government has failed to demonstrate that the forced medication of Mr. Whitman against his will, is substantially likely to render him competent to stand trial. To protect the liberty interests of defendants who are initially too ill to stand trial, the Supreme Court implemented the four-pronged Sell Test. Per the holding of Sell, in order to physically subdue and forcibly medicate a sick defendant who has not consented to treatment, the government must demonstrate by presenting clear and convincing evidence, that such treatment is substantially likely to make the sick defendant well enough to stand trial. See Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 180, 123 S. Ct.(2003). The government must demonstrate that

In this article about the U.S. vs. Jones cases is about a police who had put a GPS on Jones jeep to track down his movement. The officer in this case found that Jones had in store of illegal drugs and money in a safe house and arrested Jones. Although Jones may have in possession of illegal drugs the officer had violated Jones fourth amendment right of unreasonable search and seizure that had violated Jones privacy by implanting a GPS on his jeep without a warrant. The court found out that the officer did have a warrant but it was already past the expires date and question the use of technology that could easily violated the constitutional rights. In result the court threw out Jones's crimes and claim that officers are not allowed to use any

The case of the United States v. Salerno was about whether or not there is an absolute right to bail. Salerno believed that the Federal bail reform act of 1984 violated his 5th Amendment due process rights and his 8th Amendment right to excessive bail. This act allowed people to be detained if they were a threat to the community. Racquets in the opinion stated that the 8th Amendment didn't expect there to be a need for no bail like there is today. The Outcome was that Salerno lost the case and it established that Liberty is the norm, and detention is a carefully limited

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.

Facts: The plaintiff (Marbury) was denied his commission by Secretary of State (Madison), so he went to the Supreme Court in order to obtain his commission (under the Judiciary Act of 1789) (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). There was no Lower Court decision because Marbury could go straight to the Supreme Court in this type of situation.

MARYVILLE, MO – The case of Comstock v United States was argument today before the highest court in the land. The case asks whether the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed by Congress is within their enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution. Also, the court will determine if the Walsh Act violated Graydon Earl Comstock's right to due process and protection against double jeopardy when it was used to justify detaining him past the length of his prison sentence.

Ford vs. Wainwright case was of a man from Florida that was sentenced to execution because of his conviction of murder of a police officer during a robbery. Despite his argument of insanity, he was still thought to be eligible for execution. As he stayed in prison his mental state seemed to diminish. He became confused and delusional overtime and obsessed with the Ku Klux Klan. He felt conspired against and thought it was because others wanted him to commit suicide. He believed that the prison guards, part of the conspiracy, had been killing people and putting the bodies in the concrete enclosures used for beds. He believed that his female relatives were being tortured and sexually abused somewhere in the prison. He began to refer to himself as the pope and reported having appointed nine new justices to the Florida Supreme Court. Ford was appointed to a doctor that reviewed his illness, but Ford later decided not to work with him because he felt that the doctor also was part of the conspiracy theory. According to Farringer (2001), “Justice Powell 's concurring opinion, on the other hand, found that the appropriate standard is whether the prisoner is aware of the punishment she is about to suffer and the reasons she is to suffer it” (p.2441).

According to Alexander (2011), “the authority to stop, interrogate and search anyone, anywhere, provided they get ‘consent’ from the targeted individual” basically promise biased consequences. It is a fact that more than one in ten Americans will violate a drug law in a given year; drug buying/selling indeed are a popular and consensual activity. With that, law enforcement needs to have a more proactive approach as compared to violent or property crimes. Once the public consensus was built by media portrayals of these groups, “racial bias in the drug war was inevitable.” (Alexander, 2011) Prosecutors have the most power in the criminal justice system but the police hold the most discretionary power. In the Supreme Court case, Armstrong v. United

Caldwell challenges the separate convictions and sentences he received for the crimes of conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company and conspiracy to commit burglary of Bella Furniture. The State agrees that it was improper for Caldwell to receive two sentences for conspiracy when the State did not argue that Caldwell committed two separate conspiracies. The parties, however, disagree as to how to resolve this issue. The State maintains that while the cumulative sentence must fall, the underlying convictions should nevertheless remain and that we should remand the case for re-sentencing. Caldwell, however, contends that we should simply vacate the conviction and sentence for the charge that we determine is least supported

Before the Katz V. United States case, the comprehension the fourth amendment was a citizen’s level of reasonable expectation of privacy was at its highest when dwelling in their home amongst their property. Nonetheless, it was understood that once leaving your home the level decreases considerably and depends on where the citizen is located and what they are engaged in. However, this particular scenario, the government worker utilizing the government property (cell phone and computer) while on the government’s property can raise several questions. Can the government look and search inside the cell phones and computer without a warrant?

On 04/28/15 Jane Doe 23 year old rape victim was processed into the Jax Correctional Facility at 6 weeks pregnant. Information was revealed that she was on medication for an abortion completion, Jane Doe had taken two of the three pills prescribed; she would require the permission to continue her treatment while incarcerated to take the last pill in the regimen. Explained to patient all medications had to be verified and approved by the Family Nurse practitioner (FNP) prior to administration. FNP was informed of the patient’s health status with a need to continue medication while incarcerated, the FNP chose not to participate with the administration of medication for the health condition of this patient.

SUVs and limousines arrived at the federal courthouse to a sea of reporters. Each family was escorted to the building with the help of Federal Marshals. The courtroom was blocked off for the general public and reporters. There was an outcry for information and their request for cameras was denied. Because both families had threatened a federal judge was cited, the media didn’t have a leg to stand on. However, to settle matters before they got out of hand, senators or their representatives were allowed to sit in the proceedings. Only one senator showed up. Things got started quickly once the judge sat down and struck his gavel three times.