We were able to locate and review the lawsuit Robert Coleman v CDCR, et al. In the complaint the plaintiff alleges that he was moved from a bunk bed cell to a side by side cell, which he claims seriously affected his mental health disorder (schizophrenia). The inmate states that when he informed the C/O that he could not stay in the side by side cell the C/O retaliated against him by placing the inmate in a small cage that he had to stand in for approximately seven hours. According to the inmate, his medical disability prohibits him from standing for long periods of time and subsequently experienced right knee pain and swelling. The inmate also indicates that his placement in a modified program violated his rights against lack of yard time
The case Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health was heard by the Supreme Court in 1990. Originally the case was started when the Missouri Department of Health refused the request of Nancy Beth Cruzan's parents to take their daughter off of a Feeding and Hydration Tube that had been on their child for 3 years. Nancy Cruzan was driving one night and it was guessed her car hit a ice patch and spun out of control. Nancy was thrown 30 feet from her car (she was not wearing a seatbelt) and was found by a trooper who could not tell how long she had been face down in the snowy ditch. At the hospital the doctors noticed that she had been without oxygen in her brain for fourteen minutes. Any person who is without oxygen in their
Although Etzewieler allegedly knew Bailey was intoxicated, he still allowed Bailey to use his vehicle while he
In the R. v. Stinchcombe case, a lawyer was charged with breach of trust, theft and fraud. His former secretary was a Crown witness at the opening of the investigation. She provided relevant evidence towards the defence. Former to trial, she was interviewed by an RCMP officer and a tape‑recorded statement was taken. Far along during the progress of the trial, she again was interviewed by a police officer with a written statement taken. The defence counsel was notified of the occurrence but not of the statements. His request for a disclosure was declined. However, throughout the trial, the defence counsel acknowledge without a doubt that the witness would not be called by the Crown and required an order that the witness be called or that the Crown disclose the main statements to the defence. The trial continued and the accused was found guilty of breach of trust and fraud. Conditional stays were entered with respect to the theft counts. The
My area of interest is behavior analysis but for the purpose of this discussion I chose this case.
Name of the Justice who issued the majority opinion of the case: Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
The name of the case is District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.The plaintiff Dick Heller; District of Columbia is defendant . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided this case in 2008. Heller, D.C. special policeman, applied to a record certification from the city of Washington, D.C. for a handgun, which he wanted to hold it at home. A statute of Washington, D.C. banned having a gun within doors with no license, and it also demanded any legitimate handgun conserved at home to be extended inactive via take of a trigger-lock. The defendant, District of Columbia,disclaimed claim of Heller for a record certification established on its law. Dick Heller then has filed a suit in a court of Federal district for the District of Columbia, reasoning that the city’s trial on the
BATH, N.Y. (WENY) -- The man accused of killing his wife in their Caton home back in September appeared in court Tuesday. Thomas Clayton was in Steuben County Court for a motion hearing, where attorneys from both sides of the case exchanged information in the death of Kelley Stage Clayton.
Roper vs Simmons was considered a landmark case in 2005 in which the Supreme court chose that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty for crimes that have been committed while under the age of 18. The decision was not unanimous, but was a very close 5-4 voting. The voting overturned a previous ruling that the death penalty cannot be enforced for those who are under the age of 16, but 16 and older can receive capital punishment.
Prior to the Public Safety Realignment initiative, “more than 60,000” offenders who violated their parole returned to prison every year. With more low-level inmates returning to state prisons, California was ordered to reduce the inmate population by “33,000 in the state’s 33 prisons” in a two-year period. The primary reason for this was due to the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation no being able to afford inmates acceptable healthcare. Two class action law suits were brought about in November of 2006 (Plata v. Brown and Coleman v. Brown), the dispute was that because of overcrowding the CDCR was unable to provide adequate healthcare to prison inmates. The Coleman v. Brown case entailed the mentally disordered housed in
Currently in the United States there are no federal laws relating to sexual assault. This is due to the court ruling of US v. Morrison which overturned the clauses in the Violence Against Women Act which allowed women to sue their attackers in a Federal court. The Supreme Court justified overturning these articles in the VAWA by saying that allowing women to sue in Federal court whether there was a conviction or not was an over reach on the part of the Federal government and the commerce clause. By doing this the Supreme Court limited the commerce clause in order to overturn the articles, which was one of the first time that the commerce clause had been limited since its
The preferred method by many inmates is to file under 42 United States code 1983 or 42 USC 1983. “Section 1983,” as inmates call it, states that if a government official, such as a correctional officer, denies an inmate protection under the constitution, the injured party (inmates) can sue for liability and monetary damages. Inmates have preferred to file Section 1983 suits in federal courts than to file torts in state courts, where the scope of relief is less broad. Also, the federal courts through the hands on era to now have shown more sympathy at time to inmates’ claims. A 1992 study by the National Center for State courts (NCSC) with assistance from the bureau of Justice Statistics studied Section 1983 cases disposed of in the United State.
The federal statute that has an extensive impact on state facilities and programs is Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. These 1983 law suits can have an enormous impact on the day to day operation of the state and local prisons and jails. These 1983 suits are civil actions and not criminal actions. This means the prisoners can file a civil law suit in a federal court and challenge the conditions in the state and local prisons. These law suits that were filed by inmates claim that the prison official deprived the inmates of their constitutional rights. The inmates argue that they were deprived of adequate medical care, protection against excessive force by other inmates and the correctional officers and the inmates wanted access to
In the last decade, there has been growing recognition and discussion of the CPS problem as it pertains to the non-offending parent. In 1999, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges put together the Greenbook Initiative, a set of 67 recommendations aimed at remedying precisely this set of problems. But though the Greenbook gives long overdue recognition to the issue, the recommendations don't call for installing any firm checks on the system, as will be discussed in more detail in a later section.
Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this case interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it 's an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with.
In the case R v. Dudley and Stephens, the two sailors should not have been found guilty or charged with murder. I will examine the case with two theories of punishment, retributivism and consequentialism. I am using these two different frameworks because they both have two different requirements in order to justify punishment. Retributivism requires agents to be morally responsible, while consequentialism requires an agent to be rational. It is important to distinguish how the same action can be found guilty or non guilty depending on the framework of punishment being used. Dudley and Stephens should be found guilty under a retributive framework of punishment, but be found innocent under a consequentialist one. However, my conclusion that both Dudley and Stephens should be exempt from criminal prosecution comes from looking at a combination of retributivism and consequentialism that Duff calls Side-Constrained Consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism is a combination of positive retributivism and consequentialism. Side-Constrained Consequentialism requires an agent to not only be a rational agent, but a moral one as well. I will begin by defining my terms and laying out the necessary details of the case. I will then review the case under the frameworks of consequentialism, retributivism, and Side-Constrained Consequentialism.