Case Study: Ubbes V. Arizona

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

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

In May of 2007, a man entered the Women's restroom at a horse-racing track that was occupied by two teenage sisters. The man asked the sister if they, “want to drink beer or party” (Pet. for Cert. at 2, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 2012 COA 193 (2012) (No 15-606)). The two sisters declined and the man then turned the lights off in the bathroom. The girls attempted to leave the restroom. The man put his hand on the first sister's shoulder and moved it toward her breast. The sister brushed his his hand away. The man then grabbed the second sister's shoulder and buttocks.

In Hurst v. Arizona, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the majority. In this case, Timothy Hurst was charged with killing Cynthia Harrison. Delivering the decision of the majority, the bench in an 8-1 ruling, applied the rule established in Ring v. Arizona of 2002; the Sixth Amendment requires a jury or a judge to establish aggravating factors necessary to support a death sentence for a capital offense. A Florida jury had previously sentenced him to death and the judge had upheld the recommended sentence by the jury, which was also upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held that the State’s capital punishment scheme violated the Sixth Amendment as established in Ring v. Arizona rendering it unconstitutional.

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

A muddy shoe print was use to link an unnamed man who was on the run from the police to his vehicle which was carrying 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. Police detective Chad Larner attempted to pull over this man in a Mazda for speeding but he would not stop. The man was eventually able to lose Larner. He then parked the car, got out and tried to hide. The police later found the car and found the man two blocks away. He attempted to bribe a young woman to walk with him by saying that he would give her $40. The woman told the police that he told her that he was in a police chase in which he was not the driver and he was trying to hide from the police. When the police searched the car they found four bags of the 3 ½ pounds of marijuana. The police also

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,

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

Ernesto Miranda was arrested from his house and taken into custody. After he arrived at the police station he was identified by a witness and then interrogated by two police officers. Two hours had already passed and there was a written and signed confession from Miranda. At the trial, both the oral and written confessions were brought up in front of the jury and he was then found guilty of kidnapping and rape. He was then sentenced with twenty to thirty years in prison for each count. Miranda was never advised of his rights when he was taken into custody or when he was being interrogated by the police.

Despite the fact that criminal defendants use many defenses like “I didn’t do it” or “I did it”, a prosecutor must prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant is charged with a crime they have an opportunity to present a defense. There are four broad categories of criminal defenses the legal system recognizes: alibi, justification, excuses, and procedural defenses. (Schmalleger, 2011)

I select the Beckles v. United States location U.S. court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit, A case in which the Court will decide whether it’s holding in Johnson v. United States. The Facts of the case: “On April 11, 2007, Travis Beckles was arrested because a sawed-off shotgun was located in his residence, and he had previous felony convictions, mostly for drug possession and sales. Beckles was convicted, and during the sentencing phase of his trial, the district court determined that Beckles was an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) who had been in possession of a firearm and was therefore subject to sentencing enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines, Beckles was eligible

Does the verdict of Obergefell v. Hodges make people cast aside their beliefs to follow the law?

On June 13, 1966, was the decision date for the Miranda case as to how there was a violation of the fifth from the protection of self-incrimination and sixth amendment of the right to have an attorney. In the past, this was a major case for the state of Arizona especially how the officers who arrested Miranda and interrogated him did not inform him of his rights as they should have been, which is mandatory to do now across the states. The case revealed the flaws in law enforcement, which was quickly altered as every officer is now required to tell the accused their amendments because they are the rights to every citizen in the United States of America, and are privileges that the government should never do away with. Every amendment created

On Sunday January 10, 2016 at around 2316 hours, Security Officer Omar Alonso was contacted by E.D. Patient Registration employee, Ariel Ulanoff in regards of a male sitting at the left corner of the E.D. lobby who was making her feel unsafe because he was hitting himself in the head and face and also cursing. The Officer went to investigate and approached the male and asked if something was wrong and if he needed to get some medical attention. The male, whose name he later stated was Miguel Sanabria, said that he was just resting and that he did not need any help. The male appeared to be under the influence of some type of narcotic because he was sweating profusely and very fidgety but he was not aggressive or disrespectful towards staff or Security.