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

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 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

This case analysis of Texas v. Gregory Lee Johnson was a Supreme Court case that overthrew bans on damaging the American flag in 48 of the 50 states. Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, where he burned the American flag. Consequently, Johnson was charged with violating the Texas law that bans vandalizing valued objects. However, Johnson appealed his conviction, and his case

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.

On the night of October 3rd, 1974 at approximately 10:45 p.m. Edward Garner was shot by Officer Hymon in an attempt to stop him from escaping a crime scene. Garner died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound on the back of his head. His crime was burglary and he was found with a mere ten dollars and a purse. The case was argued on October 30th, 1984 and a decision was made on March 27th, 1985. The father of Edward Garner believed his son’s constitutional rights were violated by the defendants Officer Hymon, the Police Department, and the Mayor of the city of Memphis. With a 6-3 decision, the Justices’ decided that Officer Hymon was acting justly under the fourth amendment that states that deadly force is constitutional as long as it is “reasonable”. I believe Officer Hymon was acting in good faith and simply fulfilling his duty to protect the public and stop criminals from escaping punishment.

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)

If during all of this process no agreement or deal has been made it goes to trial. “A trail is the proceeding during which the government and the defense present evidence to prove or disprove the charges” (Victim Assistance, 2013). If the defendant chooses to have a trial by jury than the jury selection process begins. “Twelve jurors are selected randomly from the jury pool, a list of potential jurors compiled from voter registration records of people living in the district” (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). An ideal jury should consist of all types of people from different races and cultures (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). Each attorney asks each potential jury member questions about their prejudices to help them decide whether or not they want them on the jury (Steps in the Federal Criminal Process, 2015). The judge is there to make sure that the attorneys are fair with their questions, and that the jury selection ends up fair and impartial.