Hall V. Florida Case Study

In the case of Atkins v. Virginia, Daryl Renard Atkins is accused of the kidnapping, robbery, and murder of Eric Michael Nesbitt. Atkins was also charged with use of a firearm while committing each of these offenses ("FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.”, 2017). Atkins was convicted of capital murder and related crimes, by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death, but his case was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Courts, on the grounds that it is unlawful to put to death a person who has intellectual disabilities (Mental Retardation). Virginia Supreme Courts upheld the decision of the Virginia courts

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.

In other words, Billy White would have been classified as mentally retarded or intellectually disabled. In 2002 Atkins v. Virginia ruled that executing mentally retarded individuals violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, during the time White was executed there was nothing in place to protect the intellectually disabled.

The Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County Case is a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer against Palm Beach County claiming an infringement of the age discrimination in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Zimpfer has worked for the county's worker relations area for approximately 16 years i.e. since he was 52 years. Mr. Zimpfer applied for the position of employee relations manager as a vacancy in this position was advertised by the county. Following considerations and evaluation of all applications, Mr. Brad Merriman, aged 33 years was chosen by the county to fill the vacancy. As a result, Mr. Zimpfer filed a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which he hired an attorney, Ms. Lynn Szymoniak to follow his case. In her pursuit of the case, Szymoniak attempted to obtain a settlement with the legal representatives of Palm Beach County while equipped with a complimentary report from Dr. Mary Josephs, an I/O psychologist.

Brawner decision, it must be recognized that the actual law in Washington D.C. during the Hinckley trial was the American Law Institute (ALI) Test. This test was designed to include advances in the field of Psychiatry, and to avoid problems of causation that were inherent to the earlier Durham test (Collins, et al n.p.). When compared to the M'Naghten test, the ALI test decreased the standard of an absolute knowledge of right and wrong, and instead embraced a recognition of degrees of incapacity (Collins, et al n.p.). In essence, the ALI test was an amalgamation of the M'Naghten test, and its alternative, the Irresistible Impulse test (Collins, et al n.p.). Pursuant to the Hinckley trial being held in a federal court, under the ALI test the burden was on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hinckley was not insane (Collins, et al

The case of Terry V. Ohio is a landmark United State Supreme Court case that was decided in 1968 (“Terry v. Ohio”, n.d.). The plaintiff in this case was a man named John Terry and the state of Ohio was the Respondent. This decision from case influenced law enforcement's ability to detain citizens in order to question them about a possible crime. Because of this decision, the men and women of law enforcement are able to briefly detain citizens in order to further developing investigating information that could determine if a crime was committed or not.

In 1963, police officer Martin McFadden witnessed 3 men acting unusually. The men were named John Terry (petitioner), Richard Chilton, and Carl Katz. Terry and Chilton were alternating walking back and forth on an identical route, both stopping to look in the same store window. This happened 24 times. At each completion of the routine, they met at a corner to talk. At one of the meetings, another man (Katz) joined them briefly. When the officer followed the men, he saw them meet up with Katz once again in front of a different store. At this point, McFadden introduced himself as a police officer and asked them their names. When Terry spoke under his breath, he was turned around and patted down over his clothes. He was found to have a pistol in his possession, so all three men were brought into the store for a search. The men were ordered to stand against the wall with their arms raised while McFadden patted them down. Chilton was found with a revolver, but Katz was found with nothing. None of the men were patted down underneath their outer wear until found with weapons already. All three men were taken to the police station, and Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. In an 8-1 decision, the court decided that the search performed by McFadden was

In the Gregg v. Georgia case in 1976 tells how the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment on terms that it was no longer administered in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that it also serves to important social objections deterrence and retribution (Class notes, Module 10, Pg 2-3). I agree with the court's ruling, I believe if someone murders an innocent person by stabbing them to death because, they needed some drug money then why should that person have the right to continue living their life in prison and be able to get a education and be able to go to the doctors? They do not, because they killed an innocent person why do they get a chance to continue living a nice life, they should be punished by the way they killed or harmed

In this case Terry vs. Ohio, The case originated from an episode in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1963. Cop Martin McFadden watched three men taking part in suspicious conduct close to the edge of Euclid Road and Huron Street. One of the suspects was the litigant, John Terry. Alongside Richard Chilton and a third man, referred to just as Katz, Terry was seen pacing before a downtown store. Every so often, the men would respite to deliberate with each other. All the more regularly, McFadden saw the men peering into the retail facade window. Over a time of ten to twelve minutes, the three men investigated a similar store window roughly 24 times.

The most important victim characteristic that influences case processing is the prior relationship between defendants and victims. The relationships between defendants and victims are more common that they are generally assumed. In domestic violence, it is most apparent in crimes against women. In cases like this, women are much more likely to experience violence committed by an intimate partner. The violence that are measured between the intimate partners is rather difficult because it often occurs in private and the victims are scared to report the incidents to anyone because the fear or retaliation from the accused. The battered women are not always interested in criminal prosecution. In the case of Payne v. Tennessee, it involves the eighth

Fisher v. UT-Austin is a case in which the University Of Texas was trying to make their student population more diverse. They implemented a program in which they would include ‘special characteristics’ to admit the last twenty-five percent of its students, as the first seventy-five percent was already admitted because they were in the top ten percent of their graduating class within the state of Texas. For the last twenty-five percent of students the admissions process was broken down into hard data and soft data. The hard data comprising of SAT scores and high school grades, amongst other things. While the soft data took into account a review of applicants personal essays, leadership skills or community service. But it also included a special

Although Texas may argue that the standards set forth by the Briseño Factors meet the requirements set by the Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia and that the Court’s findings in Hall v. Florida may not seem to directly contradict the standards set forth by the Briseño Factors, I believe that the “outdated” standard used by Texas to measure the intellectual disability of an individual is in fact unconstitutional. The Briseño Factors may at first glance appear to fulfill the requirements of the Atkins v. Virginia ruling, however, “the Briseño factors, are not recognized by a single clinical or scientific body,” because there is no number assigned to the level of disability demonstrated by the individual, the factors give rise to the possible

This paper will discuss whether or not mentally retarded criminals should be held accountable for their actions with the punishment of execution when the crime is murder. I do not believe that mentally retarded criminals should have a blanket exemption from the death penalty because of their mental incapacity. Although all cases of murder involving a mentally retarded suspect are unique, the lives extinguished by these murderers are of no less value than those whose lives taken by mentally competent murderers. Presently, the Supreme Court of the United States upholds the execution of mentally retarded defendants and holds the belief that capital punishment does not violate the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the

The Supreme Court, located in Brisbane, was the original court which heard this matter. This was due to that it was a civil matter that dealt with an inheritance over $750,000. This $750,000 was made up of the deceased estate as well as passbook and shares.

On the other hand, one could easily argue that the standards set forth by the Briseño Factors are unconstitutional, due to the fact that the standards do not require the court to consider the individual’s IQ when determining the whether the individual does indeed have an intellectual disability. However, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia stated that “an IQ of under “approximately 70” demonstrates disability.”