Justice Scali Hernandez V. Mesa

On November 25, 1999, The Coast Guard rescued 5 year old Elian Gonzalez from the Atlantic Ocean. Elian was found on an inner tube clinging to life with dehydration and hypothermia. His mother, Elisabeth Brotons, along with several others drowned on their trip from Cuba. The INS placed Plaintiff with his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, who lives in Miami, Florida. On November 27, 1999, Plaintiff's father, Juan Gonzalez, sent a letter to the Cuban government requesting that his son be in Cuba. The letter stated that the Plaintiff was taken out of Cuba without his father’s consent. On November 29, 1999, Lazaro Gonzalez signed and submitted an application for asylum to the INS on behalf of Elian. Shortly after, another application was submitted with Elian’s signature.

1. United States v. Fluker said, "Only a prima facie showing of genuineness is required; the task of deciding the evidence’s true authenticity and probative value is left to the jury." This case shows that the failure to authenticate an email can lead to an exclusion of important evidence.

Sergio Hernandez Guereca was shot by Jesus Mesa Jr. in 2010 on the Mexico-United States border. Sergio was on the Mexican side while Mesa was on the American side. Sergio’s parents are now trying to sue Mr. Mesa in an American court. The Supreme Court is deciding whether the Guerecas can sue and if constitutional protections extend across the border. What implications would be made if the Guerecas are allowed to sue? What do those implications mean? Everything will be explained and clarified so you can understand this article better.

The civil legal system is one in which plaintiff feels that they have been wronged in someway and seek compensation and not punishment through a civil suit. This usually happens in the form of property or monetary damages. In these cases civil law governs relationship between and among people, business, organizations, and governmental entities. For example the case of Rodriguez v. Firestone (2001) civil law contained the rules for the manufacturing and sales of consumer goods with hidden hazards for the user.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

The attenuation doctrine is an exception to the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree. The approach that the Utah Supreme Court adopted was an outstanding warrant doesn’t implicate attenuation doctrine because attenuation is limited to circumstances involving independent act of the defendant’s free will. Sotomayor said this case was anything but small. Her opinion was that this case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants- even if you are doing nothing wrong. Sotomayor is the first justice of Hispanic heritage that has spoken extensively about how her personal experiences have influenced her private and public life.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

Hernandez v. Mesa involves the shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen from a border patrol agent within the United States. The 5th circuit of appeals ruled in favor of the government and now the case is in the hands of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard the oral arguments of both sides on February 21st, 2017.

Samuel Alito was born on April 1, 1950 in Trenton, New Jersey, to Rose Fradusco and Samuel A. Alito Sr. His mother was a schoolteacher and father was a an Office Director of Legislative Services. He was raised in an upper-middle class catholic Italian-American family. He attended Steiner High School graduating at the top of his class. After high school he entered Princeton University as an undergrad. While attending Princeton University he joined challenging activity such as ROTC. After graduating from Princeton University in 1972 he continued his education at Yale Law School and graduated in 1975. During his time at Yale, he was the school’s law journal editor and also served on active duty until 1975. He was discharged from active duty in 1980.

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

I am unsure on which court this is referring to, so, for the Trial court, Caetano was found guilty for possessing an illegal weapon, a stun gun. Which she appealed to the Supreme Justice Court of Massachusetts, which was denied because the weapon was not yet invented when the 2nd amendment was put in place. Commonwealth v. Caetano was introduced into the U.S. Supreme court. They then decided that it was in violation of Caetano’s 2nd amendment rights and that the state of Massachusetts should reconsider its laws.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

This case is important to anyone working in law enforcement because of the objective reasonableness standard that it established via the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This case also reversed a four-factor test regarding use of force that was used to test if the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain discipline or was applied with malice to cause harm. The Supreme Court in 490 U.S. 396 (1986) determined that the four factor test did not cover all possible situations and only the decision making skills of a human being can adequately determine the appropriate use of force.

Hernandez V. Texas is based in the 6th amendment, “guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions”. This case is a very well-known because there was too much of discrimination towards Hispanics. Pedro Hernandez is a resident at Edna, Texas, a Mexican guy who was accused of convicting the murder of Joe Espinosa who was also a resident of the same area. Hernandez was found guilty by an all-white jury going all the way to Supreme Court. Their lawyers argue that it wasn’t fair for them not having a Mexican American as a jury and there was only Americans, because in that way they would take advantage of a Mexican American to do whatever they wanted to do with him. In the 1950’s was when this case occurred and also there was a harsh discrimination to Mexican Americans from the white people at the United States. Mexicans and African Americans were just a “waste of time” for the white people, that’s how the white people thought about them. History, discrimination and how did this issue impact police, court, and corrections are essential things that will be cover.