Tennessee V. Taylor Case Analysis

Michael Kingsley, a petitioner who was awaiting a trial in Monroe county jail, filed a lawsuit against jail staff who used excessive force against him. On the evening of May 20, 2010, an officer performing a standard cell check noticed a piece of paper covering the overhead light in the jail cell Kingsley was being held in. The officer told him to remove the piece of paper, but Kingsley insisted that someone else covered the light. Several officers told Kingsley to get rid of the paper, but each time, he refused to do so. The jail administrator, Lieutenant Robert Conroy, ordered Kingsley to remove the paper the next morning, but he refused again. Lieutenant Conroy then told Kingsley that officers would remove the paper and he would be moved to a receiving cell.

According to legal petitions, in Miller v. Alabama (2012), a 14-year old young man by the name of Evan Miller entered the home of his neighbor, Cole Cannon. He is to have allegedly beat and robbed his neighbor. He exited the premises of Cannon’s home. Later in the same evening, Mr. Miller returned to his neighbor’s home, with a friend, Colby Smith searching for drugs within the trailer. They stole a stack of baseball cards and returned to Miller’s home. Miller and Smith, again returned to Cannon’s home where they reportedly found him unconscious. While there, Miller took $300 out of Cannon’s wallet. Miller was in the process of placing Cannon’s wallet back in his pocket when Cannon awoke and began attacking Miller. At that time, Smith struck Cannon with a bat. At some point during the struggle, Miller took possession of the bat, repeatedly striking Cannon in the head. The pair left the home after they covered Cannon in a sheet. According to the coroner’s exam, Cannon was still alive at this time. Miller and Smith returned again to the trailer and set it on fire in an apparent attempt to cover up their crime (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). The interviewing detective, Tim Sandlin read Miller his Miranda rights. Miller denied any event took place, initially, but subsequently agreed that he had stolen money and driver’s license after a fight with Cannon but had not set the fire. According to the autopsy report, Cannon died from smoke inhalation. However, there were “significant

My role as Allen Brookson is significant in the case of Brookson v. Carter because I was the first to be wrongfully attacked by Wendell Carter. My role will help to prove that Carter is guilty for various reasons, and why Allen Brookson and Fred Brookson should be offered compensations for both severe physical and posttraumatic stress. The physical injuries sustained were taken to the hospital that resulted in a detrimental medical expense and traumatic stress such has weight loss, chronic anxiety, and insomnia. Essentially, the Brooksons should win this case because Carter committed a Class B misdemeanor by illegally carrying a knife that can injury someone, and we will, too, because of Assault of the third degree, Carter committed assault

Payne was tried and convicted by the Tennessee Trial Court by a jury on two counts of first-degree murder and on one count of assault with intent to murder in the first degree. Payne was then sentenced to death for both murders and 30 years in prison for the assault. Payne appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court asserting that Mary Zvolanek’s testimony was “irrelevant,” and that her testimony violated his rights guaranteed by the 8th amendment as was applied in the cases of Booth. V. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989); however, the court concluded that Zvolanek’s testimony was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Following the Court’s decision, Payne appealed to the United States Supreme Court who heard his case.

In Tennessee v. Garner (1985) a Tennessee statue was under scrutiny due to it providing that if, after a law enforcement officer stated his or her intent to apprehend a suspect, the suspect attempts to flee or forcibly resists the officer has the right to do whatever necessary in order to apprehend the suspect. With this statue in place a Memphis police officer shot Garner’s son while he was fleeing from a home that he was suspected for burglarizing. The officer shot Garner’s son in the back even though he suspected that the individual was just a teenager who was unarmed and was of slight build. The district court ruled that the shooting was constitutional, whereas, the appeals court reversed the ruling. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that

In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.

The case I decided to use for my reflection was the “United Sates vs. Jones” case. Jones was a man being investigated for drug trafficking and so the police got a warrant to put a GPS on his jeep to monitor him. The police went beyond what they were allowed to do in the warrant, therefore he was found not guilty due to the violation of the Fourth Amendment. District prosecutors disagreed and took it to the Supreme court to review.

Facts:          On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over

The sixth amendment to the U.S constitution guarantees a defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to a speedy, public, and impartial trial by jury. Once it has determined that the trail will be by jury, the next step in the criminal proceeding is the selection of the jurors. During this process possible jurors receive a summons in the mall ordering them to appear in court at a specified time and date the people who are summoned comprise the venire (the prospective jurors for cases). Voir dire Latin term meaning to speak the truth, this is an examination conducted by the courts or by the attorneys of a potential juror or witness to determine if they would be proficient or qualified for services. Jurors’ questionnaires reveals information disqualifying them from jury service is only the first step in the jury selection process. Typical questions relate to whether prospective jurors know the defendant, the attorneys, or any of the witnesses, whether they have read or heard about the case in the media, and whether they have racial, nationality, or gender biases. Effective voir dire is getting the prospective jurors to tell the court or attorneys what they need to know.

In the court case Tennessee v. Garner, states that the Supreme court established a standard review for evaluating claims of excessive force arising from deadly force incidents. (Ross, 2015) The justification for utilizing deadly force to stop a suspect from fleeing was discussed in this case. In the case regarding officer Smith and Billy, Officer Smith used deadly force to stop Billy from escaping the liquor store. Billy’s protected rights were violated in the case. Tennessee v. Garner states that it is not permissible to use deadly force to stop the escape of a felony suspect under all circumstances. The Supreme court also stated that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the fourth amendment reasonable requirement

In 1951 Eugene Dennis along with 10 other members of the American communist party were arrested and charged under the Smith Act with teaching and supporting the overthrowing of the government. This was the third of a series of major cases pertaining to the freedom of speech in concern with speech with communist ideals supporting the overthrow of the government. In 1925’s Gitlow V NewYork, Gitlow is charged under the criminal anarchy act due to his communist publications, and in 1927’s Whitney V California, Whitney is charged under the criminal syndicalism act for helping establish the communist labor party of America.

The first phase of a criminal jury trial is focused on selecting specific jurors, which is accomplished through a process referred to as 'voir dire' which is a screening of potential jurors. In the criminal trial involving an offense categorized as a felony "12 jurors and up to six alternate jurors may be chosen." (3rd Judicial District, ) Voir dire of the jury involves the prosecuting and defense attorneys questioning the potential jurors and

Voir dire- Is the process of selecting jurors before the beginning of a criminal trial. This when potential jurors is question by the defense and prosecutor to find out about their background and any bias (Gabbidon & Greene, 2013)

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a