Joseph Hurtado Vs California Summary

"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited deprivation of life, freedom or assets, property, without due process and equally violate the Fifth Amendment rules that inquire no private property shall be taken for public use without rightful recompense.” CES was required to follow up with a notice and provide an opportunity to be heard before they penalized a student. The board was supposed to hold an entire hearing on the third offense before any expulsion, arrest, incarceration or confiscating the student's phone permanently which they completely ignored.

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. Three tests are used from previous cases to determine whether a right of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The first test is determining whether the right to a trial by jury is a “fundamental principle of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” It also needs to be determined if this right is “basic in our system of jurisprudence” and if the right to a trial by jury is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.” White determines that a right to a trial by jury passes these tests. He determines that the right of a trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” The right to a jury trial was created to avoid abuse by the Government. A right to a jury trial is a safeguard against a corrupt prosecutor or judge. Due to this, the right to a jury trial it is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which becomes fundamental to all States. In distinguishing a petty offense from a serious offense, the penalty of the crime is viewed. The punishment authorized by the State is used “as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments.” Louisiana law’s penalty for simple battery of imprisonment of up to two years and a fine is not considered to be a petty offense. Compared to the federal system, petty crimes are those punishable with up to six months in prison and a $500 fine. A crime punishable by two years in prison, by the standards of this country, is determined to be a serious offense and not the

The Scottsboro Trials led to two prominent U.S. Supreme Court cases—Powell v. Alabama and Norris v. Alabama. Surprised and Dismayed by the outcome of the first set of trials, the NAACP determined that the rights of the Scottsboro boys had been treaded upon and deserved a need for a re-trial to shed light on the importance of a fair trial. The re trial resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court case Powell v. Alabama. The defense argued that the nine men were denied protection of their fundamental right to having effective legal counsel.The right to having effective council is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The right to due process recognized by the 14th Amendment was also neglected during the Scottsboro Trials . The Court affirmed the concerns of the NAACP and International Labor Defense and reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro boys. The Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama ultimately set forth the beginnings of “incorporation” of the Due Process Clause and the rights to a fair trial to those who face a sentence of death by applying them to State Constitutions under the authority of the

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

Thirty-five years later after Weeks’ case, the Supreme Court in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks’ case did not apply to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent. State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment in states’ criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf’s verdict was upheld (Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).

“Criminal procedure is the branch of American constitutional law concerned with the state’s power to maintain an orderly society and the rights of citizens and residents to live in freedom from undue government interference with their liberty” (Zalman, 2008, p. 4). The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments are significant in studying criminal procedure. In criminal justice, the criminal procedure is important because it deals with the conflict between order and liberty directly. To understand the friction between order and liberty, Herbert Packer studied the competing values that underlie the constitutional order through the Due

The jury system in America is also influence by the English jury system. Another one of America’s constitutional right is due process which is the basic for fairness that is important in the judicial system which allows our system to work with honor and integrity. According to Currie (1992), the factors of due process involve the United States Constitution; Amendments V, and XIV and in 1970 Illinois State Constitution adopted some rights for due process.

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The opinion handed down from the Supreme Court on this matter by Chief Justice Warren was a six to one vote with majority as Justices Earl Warren, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, John M. Harlan II, and William J. Brennan, Jr. the only justice in dissent was Justice Tom C. Clark. The issue present in the case was if the subcommittee is unconstitutionally exercising powers they were not granted under the constitution such as invasive questions into people’s personal lives. Watkins argued that his conviction by the court of appeals violated his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. The decision by the court overturned his conviction based on the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Chief Justice Warren stated that it is Congress’s right to investigate items that are intrinsic to the legislative process however broad this power is, it is not unlimited. This power of investigation is to oversee current laws and proposed statues, exposing defects in the political and socioeconomic systems and find a way to fix them. Under this power it is not to expose the private day-to-day life of an individual or their past. This investigation set out to punish the people investigated and propels the status of the investigators. It is the duty of a citizen to cooperate with Congress however the rights of the witnesses involved in the committee’s

A court first applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in 1914, in Weeks v. United States. In that case, the court determined that because federal officials had violated the Fourth Amendment in their search of the defendant’s domicile and their seizure of his document, the document should have been returned to the defendant and not held for introduction at his criminal trial. The Court deemed the use of the unlawfully seized evidence at trial to be a disadvantageous error, and it reversed a lower court’s decision to confirm the defendant’s conviction by benefiting him. The Court had an opportunity to rethink the exclusionary rule in 1949. In 1949, the judicial system held that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures does expand to state government officials, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, contrary to the holding of Weeks. Nonetheless, the Court rejected to

In response the five states ratification at the conventions recommended guaranteeing the right to jury trial in civil cases by constitutional amendment. The amendment protected findings of fact in civil cases exceeding certain dollar value from judicial review. Congress decided to add the proposed Bill of Rights to end of the constitution later on, directly to Article Three. “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”: When the Seventh Amendment was written in the 1700s, $20 was considered a lot of money. Today, any disputes that involve amounts less than $75000 will not be handled in a federal court. The Supreme Court has held that the Seventh Amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial also guarantees a jury that is of official size, or be able to handle the case. The court decided upon a six-member jury, and believed I would be sufficient to meet the amendment’s requirements in the case of Colgrove v. Battin (1973) and in Ballew v. Georgia (1978) that a five-member jury violated the amendment’s

Judge Simon Skinner and Judge Leslie Tiller are judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, respectively. Each judge has an involved history with Minnesota’s governor, Joyce Cooper. In this paper, I address whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause bars Skinner and Tiller from hearing two unique cases to which Cooper is a party. I conclude that, for both judges in both cases, it does not.

Now Cometh Triginal D. Jackson in a Motion for Dismissal on the grounds of excessive Governmental Involvement and abuse of Fourth Amendment 's "right of the people to be secure in their persons" the Fifth Amendment. Ninth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment.

As the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment became the source of various other rights that were inherent to our system of freedoms and liberties, it also became the channel through which the amendments in the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states as well. The landmark case of Mapp V. Ohio is very important, because it set a legal precedent in the courts that held up Mapp’s rights guaranteed to her by the Constitution. This paper will examine the details of this case and trace the historical extension of the federal government's power over the states using the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."