Heinsius V. Hawkins Case

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

The first witness shown on the stand in the documentary was James Stephens. He was the husband of the victim, Mary Ann Stephens. Mr. Stephens was the crucial witness in this case, because he was the only witness. He claimed in his testimony that Brenton Butler murdered Mary Ann Stephens three feet away from his face. Approximately three hours after the incident, he was able to identify Butler as the culprit from fifty feet away. However, the defense attorney was able to pick highlight multiple problems during the cross-examination. The entire incident took place within a five second window. The defendant was wearing a t-shirt with a prominent logo when he was arrested. Mr. Stephens did not mention the logo to police, and incorrectly stated that the shirt had a collar. It was later learned when a second suspect was arrested for the crime, that Mary Ann Stephens was shot after she spilled her coffee on the shooter. James Stephens never mentioned once mentioned this.

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Union Court cases over time have come forth and altered the course of this country and even the world. While this case didn’t really affect the world, Jones v. North Carolina brought forth an important question on prisoner’s rights. Jones v. North Carolina was a court case in 1977 that brought forth the debate if workers in prisons have the right to join a labor union. The details of the court case and thoughts on if the court was justified in their ruling will bring to light of what sort of value as a human being do prisoners have.

When a person takes steps toward the commission of a crime and has a specific intent to commit the crime, but for unforeseen reasons is unable to complete the crime the person has committed the crime of Attempt (Jirard, 2009). In the case of the State of Indiana versus Donald J. Haines, emergency personnel including two police officers [Dennis and Hayworth] along with emergency medical technicians [Garvey and Robinson] responded to Mr. Haines’s apartment for a report of a possible suicide that just occurred. When officers Dennis and Hayworth arrived at Haines’s apartment they discovered him lying face down in a pool of blood. Officer Dennis noticed that both of Haines’s wrists were cut and were bleeding. When Haines heard the paramedics he stood up, and began screaming at Dennis that he has AIDS and that he should be left to die. Dennis advised Haines that he was there to help him, and Haines told Dennis that he wanted to fuck him so that he could give him AIDS. Haines than told Dennis that he was going to utilize his wounds to spray blood on him, and began to jerk back and forth causing his infected blood to get into Dennis’ mouth and eyes. Haines told Dennis that he could not deal with having AIDS, but that he was going to make him deal with it.

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

In May of 1998, Kipland Kinkel brought a gun to his school. Over the course of two days this escalated from: being sent home, to murdering his father and mother, to murdering 2 students and wounding 26, earning a lifetime sentence of 111 years and 8 months in prison. In the court case being examined, the presiding judge addresses the original case, defendants ground for appeal, and the justification for the State’s decision to deny the appeal. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the Higher Court’s decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

In 2000, the Arlington Police Department received information stating that Earnest Leon Voyles had exchanged emails that contained sexual content with a fifteen year old girl from London, England. According to this informant the fifteen year old girl, “Amy Chang”, had been solicited for sex by Voyles and had arranged to meet with her in London to engage in a sexual relationship. Sergeant James Crouch of the Arlington Police Department was unsuccessful in contacting “Amy Chang” to verify the arrangement but was not successful, however, he was successful in verifying that Voyles was working as a teacher at a junior high located in Arlington, Texas.

In August 2015, the case Miller V Davis brought to light the complicated relationship between law and morality. Indeed, Mrs Davis a county clerk in Rowan county (Kentucky), is being sued for not delivering marriage licences to same sex couples as she believes that homosexuality is morally wrong. Thus, despite the fact that same-sex marriage has been made legal by the U.S Supreme Court since June 2015. Ought individuals to apply the law though it is in inadequacy with their moral beliefs? Do the law should be totally free from any moral influence? Many legal scholars have argued on these questions, as well as trying to define the terms “law” and “morality”. While no one has agreed to a universal definition, law can be defined as a “body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects”. On the other hand, morality is referred to as an “ethical wisdom” , the set of common values unifying a society. This essay will discuss the role of morality in the law, while analysing different legal school of thoughts arguing on the topic. First of all, positivists such as Bentham, Austin and Hart, argued that morality should not interfere with the law as it is created by a legitimate authority. On the other hand, naturalist theorists, such as Aristotle, Fuller and Dworkin, believed in the existence of a “higher law”, highly influenced by morals, has to be integrated in a legal system

Why would the Indiana Attorney General wade into a United States Supreme Court case over the opening prayers said at town council meetings in western New York state?

North Carolina, the concurrence states, “If the statue is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgement requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake.” Based on this statement, it gives us support to consider whether Officer Raymond’s stop was objectively reasonable or not. Also, The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

In 1984, a protest was held during the Republic National Convention, in Dallas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and a few companies based in Dallas. Gregory Lee Johnson, at the time a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in the protest. When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused an American flag in kerosene and set it on fire. Johnson was charged with violation of Texas law, "intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas." His actions were classified as a class A misdemeanor. Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas, stating that his actions were protected by “symbolic

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

In the case of State v. Heitman, Gary Heitman was sentenced to 8-12 years in prison for charges of “criminal conspiracy to commit first degree sexual assault on a child” (Heitman 1). Gary Heitman, 53, sent lude and perverse emails and letters to a 14-year-old girl, referred to as A.S. His first physical encounter with the girl was handing her an envelope containing “a $100 bill, three condoms, and a letter” (Heitman 1). After the girl had informed authorities, they took matters into their own hands and began to email Heitman under the guise of A.S. In this case of entrapment, there was sufficient evidence before the happening of the guise, and only warranted authorities to be sure that his intentions were clear. I believe that drawing on neither

Facts of the Case: Hayes Slaughter was a doctoral candidate at Brigham Young University; a private, religious institution of higher education sponsored, owned, and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Hayes used the name of B.Y.U. professor as a co-author – without the professor’s permission – in hopes of increasing his chances of getting the article accepted for publication. Previously, Hayes submitted the same paper with only his own name for publication without success. However, after adding the name of Professor Thorne, the paper was successfully published, but without the knowledge or input of Professor Thorne himself. Additionally, the

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by