The Case Of Winterburn V Bennett

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).

1.Probable cause is a set of facts surrounding a specific circumstances that leads a “reasonable person” to believe an individual is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause is required in the instances of an arrest, search and seizure and the issuance of a warrant. To ESTABILISH reasonable cause the officer can use any trustworthy information. For example the office could use his/her experience, informant information, first hand observations or knowledge, victim reports, anonymous tips, or hearsay.

Rinaker vs Superior Court case is a juvenile delinquency proceeding minors, Christopher G. and Huy D, are charged with committing vandalism. Minors were allegedly convicted with throwing rocks at Arsenio Torres’s car. Torres later brought a civil harassment case against the minors, which began the process of mediation in an effort to resolve the civil harassment action.

The first amendment, which is considered the right to freedom of speech, is a misconception to many. Not all citizens, but some, think that because of the first amendment; they can say whatever they want. Although citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech is viewed differently by others. Which leads to confusion as to what can be said and what cannot be said. Both court cases: Tinker v. Des Moines, and Bethel v. Fraser involved the confusion and misunderstanding of this first amendment.

The case was brought forward to the NSW Supreme Court in 2001 whereby Judge Hulme ordered both Respondents as negligent. This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal whereby the judgement was granted in favour of the Respondents. This case affirms the previous decision.

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

During the 1970’s, Connecticut was a very prosperous state with growing numbers of minorities. Many of these minorities would tend to live in the same neighborhoods which would lead to other races, like whites, leaving an area and moving to a new area away from these minorities. We learned about white flight in The Children in Room E4, but this has been relevant for many decades. These whites may have not moved out of state, but just away from the minority neighborhoods to places like the suburbs. This tended to cause property values to decrease in the minority neighborhoods, making it cheaper for more minorities to move in, but also harder for the minorities to move to areas where white people may be living like the suburbs. With decreased property values beginning to happen, the property taxes were also beginning to decrease. This is what led to the development of the case Horton v. Meskill. Also during this time, the United States was barely a decade old from all of the segregation it had experienced during the 1960’s. the segregation had an influence on why whites were moving away from the minorities, which was causing these public school property tax funding’s to be low. Even though segregation de jure was outlawed at this time, there were still people living by segregation de facto. The people did not realize this at this time in the 1970’s, but it eventually built up momentum and became relevant in the Connecticut court case Sheff v. O’Neill.

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Throughout an 18-hour period on October 26, 1989, the appellant Marc Creighton, a companion Frank Caddedu and the deceased Kimberley Ann Martin consumed a large quantity of alcohol and cocaine. The afternoon of the following day on October 27, the three planned to share a quantity of cocaine at Ms. Martin’s apartment. The evidence and later testimony indicates that all of the members involved are experienced cocaine users. The appellant acquired 3.5 grams (“an eight-ball”) of cocaine; he did not try to determine the quality or potency of the cocaine before injecting it into himself and Frank Caddedu.

The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was

United States is one of the few nations that guarantees and protects freedom of expression of its citizens. Freedom of expression is defined as a right to voice ones beliefs and ideas without any harm. Under the Bill of Rights, the government has no power to restrict these unalienable rights. The First Amendment is exceedingly important to the liberty and freedom of individuals. It guarantees citizens the ability to express themselves, worship, voice their opinions, and rally to situations they disapprove of and want to be heard. A great amount of laws and cases pertain to adults and their freedom. It is often unrealized that adolescents and teenagers endure the same issues in their lives.

For my argumentation paper, I have chosen to address the issue of libel as it relates to the case of Draker v. Schreiber. Libel is defined as a published false statement that is damaging to a person 's reputation. Draker v. Schreiber was taken up by the Texas state court, on September 1st, 2006. I agree with the court 's decision to not charge the young boys for defamation and intentional emotional distress. Throughout this paper, I will support three arguments, first why the students should have been held responsible for defamation and libel per se, second why the students were not responsible for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and lastly, why I believe the parents were not in question of negligence or

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.

obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court

• Whether the transfer of chattels and other personal property attached to the land were not fixtures under the general law definition.