Moore Vs Texas

The Death Penalty in America has been a talked about issue for some time now. Americans have their own opinions on the death penalty. Some people feel it is too harsh of a punishment, some believe if you take a life you should lose your life. I myself do not believe in the death penalty. To me it goes totally against what Americas was built on God. Even though over the last fifteen years or so we have slowly drifted away from “In God We Trust”. Looking at the death penalty in a whole it was never something that the United States came up with. It was adopted from Britain. (Bohm, 1999)The first ever recorded death penalty in United States history was that of Captain George Kendall in 1608. He was executed for being a spy. The death of Captain Kendall started a chain of other colonies jumping on board for the death penalty. In some colonies they were sentencing people to death for petty crimes, such as steeling, or trading with Indians. Over the years after the death penalty would be reformed and revamped numerous of times. Until it was only used when murder or treason occurred. Matter of fact Pennsylvania was the first state

A case challenging a statute as violating a person's rights under the U. S. Constitution.

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

The death penalty was established as a form of punishment as far back as the 1600's. There are many controversial issue's in our world today whether it goes against our civil rights or not. As of today there are thirty-two states who still allow the death penalty and seven states who have completely abolished it ( Norton,W.W.& Company, Inc 115.) Even though the use of the execution has gradually decreased, there have still been many cases in the past years that states have still used it. At one point there was a time the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional, but after a couple years the court allowed states to bring back the death penalty. The courts have struck down many laws where states have tried making it mandatory in

The case was then brought to the Supreme Court, where it sided with the district court and the petitioner, Mr. Johnson. The Court ruled that if denied access to a ‘jail-house lawyer' and unable himself to file the writ, he essentially has been denied his federal right to habeas corpus.

In this case, I am presenting an individual citizens Fourth Amendment protection captivated from Jones and others individuals. The government started investigating Jones with a suspicions conspiracy of drug trafficking. A tracking device installed on the defendants’ vehicle after a terminated authorize a warrant permanent to the Government to search and install a GPA on Jones vehicle. Antoine Jones and others with the same conspiracy of the investigation were sentenced life imprisoned by the District Court Juries of Washington District of Columbia. The jury found Jones guilty of drug trafficking and possessions. The 12 amendments proposed in 1789, that constitutions the Bill of Rights under no circumstance to protections individualities

The Joseph Hurtado v. People of California case (110 U.S 516) began on January 22, 1884 and was decided on March , 1884, was between the plaintiff, Joseph Hurtado, and the defendant, California. Hurtado appealed against the conviction proclaiming that he was not indicted by a grand jury based on due process in the Fourth Amendment. The question presented was, “To what principle, then, are we to resort to ascertain whether this process, enacted by congress, is due process?” The amendments that being trialed was the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

When the attorneys told the judge of the appeal, he told them to return the next day to file it, but it was denied by the judge the next day, saying it was filed a day too late (“Shipp”). A writ of error was filed by Parden, and he asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to postpone Johnson’s execution, but they declined (“Shipp”). On March 7, Parden filed a writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court, declaring that Johnson had been denied certain rights protected by the constitution, including due process and fair trial (Pfeifer, “Historic”; “Shipp”). At the federal district court hearing, the judge stated that the right to a fair trial stated in the 6th amendment didn’t apply to state trials, but the judge did move

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

The first issue in this case was whether or not the evidence collected in the case should have been suppressed or not. When Moore was first arrested the vehicle in which he was driving was then searched. Moore thought that the evidence should have been suppressed do to the fact that he was arrested on a misdemeanor charge where there doesn’t have to be an arrest made. Since the officers arrested him and then preceded to search his car Moore believed that this was a violation of his fourth amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. According to the case Gerstein v. Pugh and Brinegar v. United States if arresting officers have probable cause that a person committed even a minor offense in his presence the arrest is deemed constitutional reasonable. The case California v.

The forceful entry into Jasper Scump’s residence, search of his person and car without a warrant violated his fourth amendment rights to be secure in his persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Weeks’ petitioned against the state police for his items back since they searched his house without a warrant. During the trial in 1914, Weeks’ filed again for petition which was denied until the evidence against him was about to be used. He objected stating that the evidence was taken without any warrant, therefore violates his Fourth and Fifth Amendment.

Woods filed a K.S.A. § 60-1507 motion for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed; res judicata barred his claim, and even if it did not, “Woods failed to overcome the strong presumption that his attorneys sufficiently investigated [the witness’s] proposed trial testimony.” Woods filed a second § 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that “a colorable claim of actual innocence” required the district court to reconsider the merits of his

The Death Penalty has been used in the United States since the very foundation of our nation; the first recorded case was the execution of Captain George Kendall in 1608 in the Jamestown colony as it was believed Kendall was a spy (DPIC). Americans have seen executions throughout history and are somewhat exposed to the idea but the 21st century is a very different place than the 17th century. This century is a time of equality and rights for people of all