Lehmberg V. Travis County Court Case

Riley v. California is a Supreme Court case that pertains to the Fourth Amendment; specifically, the privacy clause. This case was decided by the Court in 2014 with a unanimous decision for Riley. It came to the Court after the petitioner, Riley, was stopped for a traffic violation and then arrested on a weapons charge. The arresting officer proceeded to search Riley and removed a cell phone from his pocket. After accessing the phone the officer found evidence of gang related activity. The officer took Riley back to the station and a detective that specialized in gang related crime went through the phone and found multiple pictures and videos pertaining to a shooting a few weeks prior. They sought to enhance the charges due to the evidence found on his phone that connected him to the gangs. Riley moved to suppress the evidence that was discovered on his phone; the trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. A number of interests groups appeared as amici in this case including: EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union, Cato Institute, DKT Liberty Project, Constitutional Accountability Center amongst others submitted briefs in support of the petitioner. Two groups submitted briefs in support of the respondent and those include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies and Arizona et al.

The fingerprints on the deer rifle were matched to Byron De La Beckwith who was an active and vocal member of a white supremacist group. (Black, pg.1) Byron De La Beckwith went to trial for the murder of Medgar Evers. The two separate trials with all white juries both ended in deadlock decisions. Because the juries reached a legal stalemate Beckwith walked free.

Due to the interview taking place after hours and the case not being assigned until the following day, I was unable to be present at the time of the interview. However, I have since observed a copy of that interview. The following is a summary of the forensic interview conducted that night by Megan Merrill with Deja Jones. This is a summary, not an exact transcript.

Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he

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

One of several errors in the trial was a reckless omission by a forensic scientist who testified for the prosecution. Semen was found on the victim’s body, the scientist testified, and Dominguez’s blood type matched the semen sample, meaning he could have been the perpetrator. The scientist did not tell the jury, however, that two-thirds of men in America would have matched that sample. Dominguez was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison. He was released after serving four years and sought DNA testing at his own expense. The tests proved his innocence. His case is one of many in which limited forensic science or wrong forensic testimony has led to wrongful convictions.

Frosch, D and Johnson, K. (2007). Colorado Hearing Re-examine 1987 Murder Case. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/us/27fortcollins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

SA Lawrence met with District Attorney Steve Wadlington on 05/06/2015 to get all documents associated with the investigation. DA Wadlington provided SA Lawrence with a copy of the Autopsy Report, as well as contact numbers for Beryl Ivey (decedent’s sister), and Chris Salter (decedent’s son). DA Wadlington explained that the family was concerned over the death of Charles Salter and wanted it investigated. According to the family Salter’s wife, Sandra Salter, had moved out of the residence a couple of weeks prior and went back to the residence to collect all of her belongings. Sandra Salter arrived Friday night and stayed at the residence.

It is likely that a court will find Caterers Unlimited did not contract with Kris Hamilton for items deemed as necessaries under Utah’s Legal Capacity of Children statute. The statute states “a minor is bound not only for reasonable value of necessaries but also by his contracts, unless he disaffirms them.” Utah Code Ann. § 15-2-2 (1953). The Utah court further explains this legislation in Harvey v. Hadfield, where the court specifically recognizes “the justice and propriety of refusing to enforce contracts against minors, except for necessities” and reaffirms that the purpose of the 15-2 statute is to protect minors from imprudent acts until they “have the maturity of judgment necessary to deal with opposing parties on equal terms so that it is fair and equitable to bind them by their acts.” Harvey v. Hadfield, 13 Utah 2d 258, 372 P.2d 985 (1962). Although the Utah courts have failed to explicitly define the term “necessaries,” authority from the Arizona Court of Appeals in the Valencia v. White case determined that necessaries constitute items such as food, clothing, housing, and other basic requirements to sustain life Valencia v. White, 134 Ariz. 139, 654 P.2d 287 (Ct. App. 1982). It should be noted that the Arizona court did not created a strict test to determine necessaries, instead choosing to determine each case on a “factual and reasonable basis.”

In comparing this case to United States v. Leon, in that case Alberto Leon had been under surveillance from the police because they suspected he was dealing drugs. In that case, the Supreme Court started the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule where it’s okay if the police searched someone and found incriminating evidence if they acted in “good faith” and thought their actions were legal. In United States v. Leon there was even a search warrant a judge had issued but later it was found invalid so the legality of the search was questioned. There was no search warrant being issued during the time Barry went to search Sheldon’s apartment. He was only acting on a personal vendetta to get back at Sheldon and since he did not have a warrant

In 2000, Eddie Lee Howard was convicted of the rape and murder of 84-year-old Georgia Kemp in February 1992. Howard was also convicted in a second trial in 2000 and has been on death row ever since. However, Howard’s case has been called into question. The post conviction hearing was completed, during which the Mississippi Innocence Project represented Howard, making the case that the prosecution’s only physical evidence that links Howard to the crime is a bite mark testimony of forensic odontologist Michael West. When questioned in this most recent meeting, West continuously defended his opinion that the bite marks he claimed to have discovered on Kemp’s body matched the dental molds from Howard. Additionally, West wrote off any statements

Thanks to an organization called “The Innocence Project” and Peter Neufeld (Lawyer & Co-founder), both Brooks and Brewer were eventually cleared of the wrongful convictions and released. Neufeld stated that there have been hundreds of people who were wrongfully convicted based on “Bite Mark” testimony. Neufeld further stated that a study of the cases of people who were exonerated by DNA evidence showed that 60% of those cases involved invalid evidence or misapplication of science.

Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Following his graduation, Scalia attended Harvard Law School and received his L.L.B. After law school, Scalia spent six years from 1961-1967 at a private firm in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1967, Scalia began serving as a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, and taught there until 1971. Between 1971 and 1977, Scalia served the federal government in several capacities, such as: General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, and Assistant Attorney General for the

On January 01, 2017 at approximately 7:14 PM I, Deputy Bowring, was stopped by a Barbara Fish who advised me that she need my assistance, down the road. Barbara stated that she thinks her friend’s husband is deceased. I followed Barbara to the address of 9999 E. FM 2966 Yantis, Texas.