Summary Of The Infamous Case Of Rubin Carter

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?

United States was decided by the Supreme Court in 1945. The case involved police brutality were the victim was killed. The federal government prosecuted the police officers after the State of Georgia refused to do so. M. Claude Screws was Sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. Screws knew the victim well, they had been in confrontation over a pistol seized from the victim Robert Hall. On January 29, 1943 Screws had two officers arrest Hall on charges of stealing a tire. The three men drove Hall to the town square and beat him with their fists and a two pound blackjack in front of the courthouse. They did it in plain sight, as residents watched from their homes. The State of Georgia failed to bring charges on the three men, Screws and the other two officers even though repeated suits by the federal government were placed, “a jury in Albany, Georgia, convicted all three defendants of violating Section 242, rejecting the officers’ claim that the beating had been justified in self-defense.”(Watford, 2014) Section 242 was too vague and could not be used to trial because the defendants argued they were not sure which rights it protected. There was a debate between the Supreme Court Justices if the vagueness of Section 242 would lead to a mistrial. The Court’s formation of Section 242 had introduced a “radical revolution” in the balance of power between the National Government and the States. Justice Frankfurter argued that, “because the defendants violated Georgia law by committing murder, this was a purely local crime-enforcement matter that had always been left to the domain of the States”(Watford, 2014) The federal government were now going to be able to make all lawless acts by any police officer a federal crime and Section 242 had survived. The survival of Section 242 meant that the federal government would have a part in fighting the well-known problem of police brutality to African Americans and other minorities, mainly in the South. It was

Gideon v. Wainwright is a Supreme Court case that occurred in 1963 which questioned the defendant’s right of the sixth amendment. If it was not for a man in his prison cell that wrote to the Supreme Court, the United States court systems would not be the same today. Clarence Gideon was arrested because he stole money from a pool hall’s vending machines. At trial he could not afford an attorney and was not appointed counsel. If it was not for Gideon who wrote to the Supreme Court petitioning his constitutional rights he would have never had the opportunity to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although Clarence Gideon was an uneducated and poor citizen, he still was able to petition his constitutional rights to the United States Supreme court in order to achieve a truly fair trial. He ended discrimination in the courts against the poor who cannot afford their own counsel.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

In these cases a lot of people were mistreated and judged. They were discriminated because of the color of their skin. Only because they wanted things to be fair, right, and equal. In the Plessy v. Ferguson case there was discrimination. They ignored and discriminated colored people because they were colored. They wanted to seem like they really cared and let them be able to go the same place they go but the colored people

We are so accustomed to waking up every day without a care in the world. We can basically go wherever we like, eat wherever we like, sit wherever we like, and not have to worry about another person controlling our every move (unless it’s our parents of course)! Imagine a time, not too long ago, when just because of the color of your skin, you had an “owner” and were treated as a piece of property, instead of another human being. A time where you couldn’t go into certain places, sit in certain areas, let alone use the restroom, unless it was in a designated place for your particular skin color. You weren’t labeled as people, but as black or white. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia and had to face these hardships his whole entire life. When he finally walked on to free soil where slavery was prohibited, he stayed and chose to still be with his owner. Once his owner died, he and his wife decided to sue for their freedom. Little did they know, that the rules only applied to certain people when they wanted them to.

Comparing these two cases, the legal system did not really work fairly to show justice because if in accordance with the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Gregg will never be sentence to death; this not only unfair to him but also disrespects for the authority of the legal system. Let us finally look at the case of “Callins v. Collins” in 1994, in this case, even though the convict Callins was put to death by lethal injection, there was a justice stood up to struggle on save Callins’ life, and his name was Harry Andrew Blackmun, who had voted in “Gregg v. Georgia” to restore the death penalty. Blackmun claimed that he had no longer supported the death penalty because he did not believe that the capital sentencing procedures were still working, and restoring the death penalty was a big

In the case of Conrad Jarrett I would envision utilizing two frontline treatment options in order to reduce the client’s symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Bryant (2008) designed a treatment protocol that combines the use of cognitive restructuring and exposure therapy. Utilizing both of these therapies within structured individual sessions would allow a reduction in negative cognitions (e.g., feelings of guilt and shame) should these feelings intensify during exposure. My concern stems from the patient’s previous attempt at suicide and my desire to provide Conrad with some tools to combat his negative thoughts increasing the likelihood that he will remain unharmed and in therapy through the duration of treatment.

What alternatives are available to Brent in regards to the audit of payables? What are the pros and cons of each alternative?

The case also was racially important in the way the community accepted the verdict. Much of the white community saw the overwhelming amount of evidence against OJ and came to their conclusion that he was guilty. On the other hand, the Black community who was more than aware of racial prejudice by the police chose to protect their own. The two communities took the not guilty verdict in completely separate ways; the White community was outraged that who they saw as a murderer was set free, and the Black community was enthusiastic that the man they saw as innocent was not wrongly convicted. Another similarity between the situations is racist police.

“Here comes the story of the Hurricane”-Rubin Carter—the boxer, the man—who had justice stacked against him (Dylan, Bob). The question: What is justice? According to whose point of view? In the 1960s, were blacks treated fairly? Case in point—Rubin “Hurricane” Carter who was finally released from jail after 19 years of being wrongfully imprisoned for a crime he never committed.

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

While the trial started, Ferguson’s defense attorneys prepared their powerful opening remarks, in which they insisted that it would be a land mark case for race relations in the United States. Unfortunately, Ferguson fired all his attorneys at the last minute and decided to represent himself. Ferguson then came up with a more bizarre excuse for his crimes stating that a computer chip had been implanted in his brain and was requesting Bill Clinton be called to the witness stand (Koenig, 2009). The outcome of the trial was that we was convicted on six counts of murder, and 19 counts of attempted murder, and was sentenced to 315 years to life in prison (Koenig, 2009). He should of just went ahead with his lawyers, more than likely the “black rage” defense would of