Belinda Mason was a short-story writer, a reporter for a Kentucky newspaper, and a well-known journalist in her small home town of Eastern Kentucky. Mason was also a daughter, sister, wife and mother of two beautiful children. Unfortunately, Mason died at an early age from complications of AIDS. Mason’s life and death had a substantial impact on the state of Kentucky.
The court observed that the ‘legal meaning’, i.e. meaning the legislature is taken to have intended, may not correspond to the literal or grammatical meaning. As four justices put
Statutory purpose is a paramount tool in Breyer’s pragmatism. Indeed, it is one of the two tools (the second we will see later) that he has found to be “the most useful” (Yale 12) because it conduces one of pragmatism’s central values: sustaining the work of democracy. Ordinarily, the pragmatist turns to statutory purpose “when statutory language does not clearly answer the question of what the statute means or how it applies” (Breyer 85). However, the majority uses purpose in a slightly different way here. Rather than using it to modify its interpretation of the CSA, the majority uses statutory purpose to analogize it with the AAA: “Just as the [AAA] was designed ‘to control the volume
Rachel Botsman’s theory of collaborative consumption is made up of different systems that interact within the different social systems of social work individually and simultaneously. The idea of collaborative consumption is a way for individuals to swap, barter, rent, and purchase items from the convenience of their home or while on the go (2010). From a micro system, Botsman is referring to the individuals who are actively participating in collaborative consumption. By bringing individuals together on a micro level in order to share resources, Botsman’s theory demonstrates how people can work together. Whereas, from a mezzo system Botsman’s theory works to bring any small group together under some common ground. An example of a mezzo system
The ruling by the 11th U.S Circuit court of Appeals has had an adverse effect from a forensic standpoint. This ruling seems to have open the door for suspects that are involved in child pornography investigations. Any suspect that has such materials
By a 5-4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination” are followed. The current practice of 'incommunicado' interrogation is that the individual may not be compelled to incriminate himself.
FACTS -- Subsequent to a failed attempt from the plaintiff to appeal and receive the right to a trial, Harold Caldwell filed a bill of review for a case that was decided with his absence due to a dearth of convenient notification. The contrasting party, Robert Barnes, declared that he hired private process server DeWayne Perdew, to deliver the summon to Caldwell and that the decision made by the lower courts is correct. The decision of lower courts was made during a pretrial hearing, denying Caldwell a trial.
Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act is a renewal of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is an aid program for disadvantaged students. Although it does sound as if the Act is helping children all across the country, Alexandra Robbins thoroughly explains otherwise in her book, The Overachievers: The Secret Lives of Driven Kids. Within pages eighty five through eighty nine, Robbins thoroughly shows her negativity to the Act and why it’s hurting children rather than helping them. She uses hard facts, such as the emphasis on tests, altered curricula, and the corrupt college admission process to prove her point.
The last fifty years of American law have changed drastically due to numerous “landmark” court cases. For those who have studied these landmark cases, Miranda v. Arizona is one of the most crucial of these cases. Until the Miranda v. Arizona trial of 1966, when a person was arrested, they were not given a fair awareness of their rights as a citizen, which often times resulted in the self incrimination or unknowingly admitting to guilt (McBride). The Miranda decision provided a constitutional and reasonable way of allowing the suspect to fully embrace their fifth and sixth amendment rights without any form of admission of guilt.
This distinction is noteworthy because this precedent targets specifics in the legislation itself, not whether congress had acted within the constitutional authority to enact the provisions. This creates a new standard that current legislative tests and regulations must be grounded in current conditions. This is a more stringent requirement that simply deciding if congress had acted rationally to enact legislation, this ruling allows for judicial review of specific provisions within
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with a felonious crime of breaking and entering in the State of Florida. Upon his bench trial, Gideon requested a court appointed attorney. The bench trial judge denied Gideon’s request stating that under Florida’s law the provision of a court appointed attorney is limited to capital crime offenders. Gideon progressed to a jury trial and acted as his own counsel. He delivered his opening and closing arguments, as well as questioned witnesses. The jury found the defendant guilty and sentenced Gideon to five years in the state prison. While in state prison, Gideon filed a petition for habeas corpus contesting his guilty verdict. Gideon’s claim was based on the fact that the Court denied him his constitutional right to an attorney. The Florida State Supreme Court denied Gideon’s release. The United States Supreme Court was familiar with this issue because of a prior case, Betts v. Brady (1942), so The SCOTUS allowed a writ certiorari and Gideon’s case was reviewed again. The SCOTUS found that Gideon had been denied his constitutional right to a court appointed attorney and reserved his verdict.
The landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona is one of many cases that made an impact on the future of our criminal justice system. In 1966, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix and accused of kidnapping a raping a young woman. He was interrogated for two hours and signed a confession that later formed the basis of his later conviction on the charges. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Miranda's conviction was unconstitutional because the interrogation occurred before the suspect was advised of his rights. Additionally, any evidence obtained before the suspect is advised of his rights cannot be used against him. The Miranda rights are to ensure the protection of individual rights was guaranteed under the Constitution. To ensure that proper
Such a shift would change the eventual outcome of the hearing. Therefore, the appellate court determined that the law of state should be applied in this case as opposed to the federal rules of procedure. The appellate court further reviewed the statute to be applied and established that the Massachusetts legal view be applied. As such, the appellate court reversed the initial ruling by the district
A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix on suspicion that he had been involved in the kidnapping and rape of a young girl. After being arrested, Miranda was questioned by investigators. Later in the interrogation, investigators handed Miranda a signed confession to fill out. Included in that form was a disclaimed by Miranda that he understood his rights and that he freely waived them. Miranda, however, had not been told prior to signing that statement that he had the right to attorney. Likewise, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, and he was not advised that the statements he made in the interview could be used against him if he went to trial. At trial, prosecutors sought to use the confession as evidence against Miranda, and his attorneys objected. The objection was overruled, and Miranda was convicted, largely on the strength of his confession. His lawyers appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and when the court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, the lawyers appealed further to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The enactment of both interim and final Constitutions ushered in a new approach to statutory interpretation. In this essay I argue that the statement made by the court in Daniels v Campbell 2003 (9) BCLR 969 ( C ) at 985 is TRUE.