Supreme Court Cases In The Harlowell Case

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

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

The Scottsboro Trials led to two prominent U.S. Supreme Court cases—Powell v. Alabama and Norris v. Alabama. Surprised and Dismayed by the outcome of the first set of trials, the NAACP determined that the rights of the Scottsboro boys had been treaded upon and deserved a need for a re-trial to shed light on the importance of a fair trial. The re trial resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court case Powell v. Alabama. The defense argued that the nine men were denied protection of their fundamental right to having effective legal counsel.The right to having effective council is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The right to due process recognized by the 14th Amendment was also neglected during the Scottsboro Trials . The Court affirmed the concerns of the NAACP and International Labor Defense and reversed the convictions of the Scottsboro boys. The Court’s decision in Powell v. Alabama ultimately set forth the beginnings of “incorporation” of the Due Process Clause and the rights to a fair trial to those who face a sentence of death by applying them to State Constitutions under the authority of the

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

The United States’ attention was captivated on the Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama during the 1930s. During the time period, this case revealed the brutal treatment towards African Americans more than any other event. The case began on March 25, 1931, when a group of young white and African American youths were traveling on a train to find a job. A physical encounter broke out between them and the white youths were thrown out of the train. Then they reported the incident to a stationmaster, who stopped the train. The police arrived to gather the nine African Americans and brought them to jail. Nine young African Americans were recognized as the “Scottsboro boys”. They were accused of rape of two white women on that train. The white jury convicted eight of them, all except one, the youngest at 12-years-old, and were sentenced to death. These youths were falsely charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Although there was no evidence that linked the African Americans to the white women, they were still charged with sexual assault. The two women -- fearing prosecution for their sexual relationship with the white men agreed to testify against the black youths. The Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama is crucial in both Civil Rights history and in the evolution of the Constitution.

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the U.S. Supreme court unanimously ruled that the states are required under the Sixth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases to represent indigent defendants who are unable to afford to pay for their own attorneys. Gideon extended the right to counsel and enforced its requirements upon the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) also stands as precedent to guarantee indigent defendants charged with serious offenses the right to court-appointed attorney at the government’s expense. The ruling in Gideon established the principle “that every man, the rich, the poor, and poor as well as rich, is entitled to the benefit of counsel” (Fortas,

Wainwright was unanimous. The right to a fair trial was fundamental under the United States Constitution and the guarantee of counsel was a vital part of it. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clark affirms that there is no distinction between capital and non-capital cases in the Sixth Amendment so counsel should be provided in every

     In JOHNSON v. ZERBST (1928) the court read the 6th Amendment to require the appointment of counsel for all indigent federal criminal defendants.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

The Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell in 1997 is a lawsuit in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that offered the eugenic sterilization for individuals regarded genetically unfit. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Virginia’s statute regarding sterilization provided the basis for enactment of similar laws across the United States and subsequent sterilization of 65,000 Americans without their approval or that of their family members. Notably, the ruling of this case was based on the concept of feeblemindedness, which is no longer applicable in medical terminology. Actually, this case primarily involved state-enforced eugenic sterilization for individuals considered feebleminded or genetically substandard in certain ways. The case provides considerable insights concerning eugenics and enforced sterilization in the United States and significant concerns on whether genetics should be used for any king of legal decision.

In this case, a black man was convicted guilty in court for rape; however, he had not been informed that he had the right to be represented by a lawyer. Because of this, the judges looked at the case as being an unfair conviction. As a result, both state and federal courts are required to inform a defendant of their rights and grant them an attorney.

Subsequently, in 1972 Argersinger v. Hamlin held that defendants were required legal counsel when faced with incarceration from a misdemeanor or felony conviction (Smith, 2004). Following these Supreme Court decisions, most state and local governments had to develop new systems of indigent defense or modify the old ones to keep up with the number of clients (Wice, 2005). Since Gideon v. Wainwright, other cases have challenged the Supreme Court application of the right to counsel. Currently, all defendants are given the right to counsel at all stages of the criminal justice process, including during trial, appeals, and even during police interrogation.

This is a prominent case in the history of the United States Supreme Court. the Supreme Court collectively decided that states are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to give guide in criminal cases to speak to respondents who can't bear to pay their own lawyers. The Court held that the 6th Amendment's assurance of guidance is a key right basic to a reasonable trial and, accordingly, applies the states through the Due Procedure Condition of the Fourteenth Amendment. Around 2000 people that

In Griffin v.Illinois (1956) the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause indigent defendants are entitled to a trial transcript in order to facilitate appeals. Justice Black wrote: There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has. Justice Black’s opinion was probably designed to undermine the Betts special circumstances rule, replacing it with a flat requirement that the state had to provide counsel to indigents.(Zalman,2008).