The Case Of Kansas V. Carr

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

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.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

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.

Leading U.S. supreme court cases in criminal justice: Briefs and key terms is a source reference with respect to criminal law, constitutional law, and criminal procedure. The major focus of this book includes explained mandates of over 1000 U.S. Supreme Court cases and this book details key terms and definitions.

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.

In the case of Kyllo v. United States, I believe that the federal government did not exceed boundaries set by the Fourth Amendment. Conducting basic surveillance of the home with a basic thermal imager, Kyllo’s illegal activities were inferred using common patterns associated with indoor marijuana growth, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. Although agents used extrasensory technology to view the normally invisible heat radiating from the home, their actions did not infringe upon Kyllo’s rights. All of the information used in obtaining the search warrant was gained from the exterior of the house, not through an unconstitutional search. However unorthodox the methods may have been, they did not constitute a violation.

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 the infamous Dred Scott V. Sandford case, in 1857, the Supreme Court upheld that no one of the African American race has the ability to sue any United States federal court. Chief Justice Taney ruled that African Americans were "chattel" and had no rights under a "white man's government". Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise was affirmed unconstitutional, because the Congress does not have the power to ban slavery in the Western Territories. Sandford was favored by the Supreme Court, which gave slave owners the right of property, in the Fifth Amendment, including slaves who were bought and sold like property.

In 1984, a protest was held during the Republic National Convention, in Dallas. The demonstrators were protesting the policies of the Reagan Administration and a few companies based in Dallas. Gregory Lee Johnson, at the time a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, participated in the protest. When the protestors reached Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused an American flag in kerosene and set it on fire. Johnson was charged with violation of Texas law, "intentionally or knowingly damages, defaces, mutilates, or burns the flag of the United States or the State of Texas." His actions were classified as a class A misdemeanor. Johnson was convicted, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. He appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Texas, stating that his actions were protected by “symbolic

The case is brought to the Supreme Court by the Plaintiff Charles Baker suing Secretary of State of Tennessee Joe Carr, for the failure to redraw the legislative voting boundaries, something that was due over 60 years prior. A law that Tennessee legislature apportioned both houses and provided reapportionment every ten years on the basis of the population reported by the census, but failed to do since 1901. Baker argued that the population had shifted from the rural areas to the urban areas and that he himself was being affected and was being denied his equal protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. He sought to the court that that the state officials should hold an at-large election or they should halt the election process until the

Shortly after the establishment of the Kansas Nebraska Act, there was a slight moment of opportunity for the nation to end the long-lasting controversial issue of slavery once and for all, the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, but again, the division of the two regions grew fonder. In the 1830s, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave accompanied his slave owners to several different territories, including Wisconsin and Illinois, two slave free states at the time. After Dred Scott’s slave owner died, he attempted to sue for his freedom, being it he had stepped on “free man” soil. Although he had to return back to Missouri, the second he walked onto a free state territory he no longer identified himself as a slave. However, the ruling in the end only strengthened

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent