Supreme Court Cases: Mckiever V. Pennsylvania

Common Wealth of Pennsylvania v. Taylor Edsel is a controversial case involving arson. Taylor Edsel is being accused of intentionally setting fire to Nash Flash Electromotive due to her suspicious presence in the scene, her relation with the company, and her prominent record as an arsonist. The burning of the facility caused a commotion because the head of the company was a successful story of redemption, and a man a few steps away from revolutionizing the car industry with the Nash Flash, an electric car. Salve DeSoto is an engineer that interacted with Taylor Edsel in the workplace, thus, based on the outcomes of their interaction decided to testify against her. DeSoto is an electrical engineer who graduated from the University of Stanford

III. Statement of Facts: Two Philadelphia officers observed Harry Mimms driving a car with an expired plate. They stopped the vehicle to issue a traffic ticket. One of the officers approached Mimms and asked him to step out of the car and produce his license and registration. Mimms alighted, whereupon the officer noticed a bulge under his jacket. Thinking the bulge might be a weapon, the officer frisked Mimms and discovered a loaded .38-caliber revolver. The other occupant was also carrying a gun. Mimms was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon and for unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license and convicted. Following a denial of a motion to suppress in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Mimms was convicted. The conviction was affirmed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania but the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

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

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

United States was a historical turning point in the juvenile justice field. The Kent decision was to only apple to the District of Columbia courts, but the impression it had was too great, causing it to become more extensive. The objectives of the juvenile courts are to provide guidance and rehabilitation for the minor and adequate protection for the public, as opposed to criminal courts obligation of fixing crime and administering punishment. In Kent vs. United States (1966), the US Supreme Court found that a juvenile must be provided the same due process rights as adults. It also allowed juveniles to the right of a formal hearing before having their cases transferred to adult criminal court. This Supreme Court case allowed minors charged with a crime the same assurance as adult offenders. It began a period where juveniles were starting to be treated as citizens. These Kent Considerations also allow the courts to determine eligibility in the Youthful offender Act. The court raised a possible constitutional challenge of parens patriae as the groundwork for juvenile

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

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).

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

However the seceding states wanted to use the excuse their constitutional rights were not being supported as discussed in their Ordinances of Secession, the Supreme Court had shown full support in their right to recover fugitive slaves, or persons held to service or labor. For example, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the Supreme Court ruled the provisions of Article IV, section 2, of the constitution as a federal requirement and the states did not have any obligation to assist in the apprehension of fugitive slaves. However, states could not impede the enforcement of this law performed by federal agents. This was followed by an even more restrictive law the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This law deprived alleged fugitive slaves due process

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

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.