Maryland versus Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)

I. The Supreme Court of the United States case, Brady v. Maryland, established the Brady Rule, which requires the government to disclose to the defendants in criminal trials material evidence that is favorable to the defendants in certain circumstances. Is the Brady Rule applicable in military disability separation hearings?

This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;

In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) Case Summary

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

III. Statement of Facts: Two Philadelphia officers observed Harry Mimms driving a car with an expired plate. They stopped the vehicle to issue a traffic ticket. One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. Mimms alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a bulge under his jacket. Thinking the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a loaded .38-caliber revolver. The other occupant was also carrying a gun. Mimms was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license and convicted. Following a denial of a motion to suppress in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Mimms was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

Common Wealth of Pennsylvania v. Taylor Edsel is a controversial case involving arson. Taylor Edsel is being accused of intentionally setting fire to Nash Flash Electromotive due to her suspicious presence in the scene, her relation with the company, and her prominent record as an arsonist. The burning of the facility caused a commotion because the head of the company was a successful story of redemption, and a man a few steps away from revolutionizing the car industry with the Nash Flash, an electric car. Salve DeSoto is an engineer that interacted with Taylor Edsel in the workplace, thus, based on the outcomes of their interaction decided to testify against her. DeSoto is an electrical engineer who graduated from the University of Stanford

631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011) .

Beginning in the 1960s, the US Supreme Court decided on a succession of landmark cases that histrionically altered the processes and all around atmosphere of the Juvenile Justice System in America. One case in particular that played a major role in the Juvenile field is Kent vs. US (383 US. 541 [1966]). The landmark case Kent vs. United States, observed as the first chief juvenile rights case in our history. This important case established the collective standards that entitled juveniles the right to waivers and preliminary hearings, which ensured due process was served. This would ultimately decide if the court would shift Kent into adult jurisdiction or allow him to remain in the juvenile system.

Citation: New Jersey v. T. L. O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U. S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083.

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

Perry v. New Hampshire 10-8974 US (2012). This case is before the Supreme Court of the United States of America following an appeal by the defendant, Barion Perry.

To: Stephen Moyer, Secretary – Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Power Inside; Alvin Gillard, Executive Director – State of Maryland Commission on Civil Rights; Meg Ward, Executive Director – Patrick Allison House