Moore Vs Texas

Procedural Background: McCarty appealed his conviction and appealed to the Franklin County Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed this appeal for failing to present a constitutional question that was substantial. The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed the defendant’s writ of habeas corpus. The United States Courts of Appeals Sixth Circuit had previously reversed this decision.

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.

In Bob Adelmann’s article, he describes a situation where the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a person cannot be incarcerate if he is awaiting trial. This decision occurred after the court reviewed a case where a man, Elijah Manuel, alleged that Joliet police officers assaulted him and arrested him after falsely reading a drug test. A county judge ordered Manuel to be detained in jail until his trail after another officer swore out a false complaint. After his charges was dismissed, Manuel released from seven weeks of jail time. Two years after the incident Manuel sued the the City of Joliet for violating his right of the Fourth Amendment by falsely arresting him and unlawfully detaining him after his arrest. His lost his

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.

This is a case of a trespassing drug distributor and his blatant disregard of national park camping rules and regulations. (R.1-2,4-5,9.) At issue is whether the trial court properly denied Appellant Thom Yorke’s motion for a new trial. (R.1,4.) Yorke claims the court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress evidence seized from his tent. (R.1,12.) The trial court correctly found that Yorke’s expectation of privacy in his tent was not objectively reasonable. (R.3.) Thus, the warrantless search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the motion to suppress was properly denied. (R.1,4,12.)

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 United States Supreme Court ruled Gerald Gault had been denied several procedural and constitutional rights during his trial in the lower court (Justia US Supreme Court, n.d.). The court found the Juvenile Code of Arizona to be invalid as it allowed the court to have unlimited control over a juvenile, including the ability to remove the child from his parents then place them into a state institution without offering any explanation. The judgment of the court found six specific violations of the Due Process Clause as well as the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in Gerald Gault’s case.

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

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.

The court's decision was that it was wrong of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny the inmate's right to appeal the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the murderer was most likely the husband and not Paul Gregory House (“House v. Bell”). The case decision would cause the denial of habeas corpus to be removed and the case would be instated with the help of the new evidence.

This case involve issues addressed under the Fourth Amendment, i.e. the evidence seized in violation of Fourth Amendment may not be used as an evidence. So the main issue in this case is that whether an evidence obtained via unreasonable searches and seizures can be used in trial at courts.

“The first established death penalty laws date as far back as the Eighteenth Century B.C. in the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes.” Capital punishment has been used as a form of justice in the United States for nearly four centuries. It was first used by Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia

The defendant had been charged with rape of two white women by the state of Alabama. The defendant’s argument in the subsequent appeals was that they had been denied their right to due process because they were not allowed to confer with their attorney. In the case argued before the Supreme Court, it was held that due process of law had not been adhered to. This was as a result of the incapability of the defendants to employ counsel and also because of their incapability to undertake their own defense. The court held that it was the obligation of the trial court whether it had been requested or not, to undertake the assignment of counsel as a critical pre-condition to the fulfillment of due process of law (Calhoun, 1988). The court noted

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.

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.