The Film, Inherit The Wind, By The Scopes Monkey Trial

In the case of Wong Sun v United States, in consideration of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine the Court excluded the admission of evidence in the trial court due to the violation of defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights when the derivative evidence was obtained. Therefore, in this essay, I am going to discuss if the exclusion of evidence contributes in an important way of supporting the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment or should the derivative evidence be admitted because police officers could not have anticipated the discovery of derivative evidence.

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

On June 12, 1994, the bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were found dead at her home in Brentwood, CA. Orenthal James Simpson, or O.J. Simpson was notified of their deaths and immediately taken into custody for questions. Upon the collection of various pieces of evidence from the crime scene, all avenues pointed to Simpson as the culprit for the double murder. The conclusion of Simpson criminal trial resulted in his acquittal. There were various reasons for this acquittal. The most prominent reasons include accusations of racism, evidence contamination, and the lack of faith in DNA profiling. This paper will discuss the issues that arose with the trial in depth and offer an explanation and solution to resolving issues

In “The Adversary Judge” Frankel explains how realities of the trial create a “role conflict” between the ideally constructed impartial judge and the realistic adversary judge (Frankel, 1976). Throughout their day people play many roles, these roles are based on the expectations of the people around them and the personality of the person (Frankel, 1976). In particular, judges are expected to play the role of neutrality, intelligence, and patience. Their role is thought to be similar of an “umpire” (Frankel, 1976). It is necessary for them to be objective in order for a just and fair trial to take place. Yet, this ideal role does not occur under the pressure of realities. One reality that pushes away the idea of an “umpire” judge is the heated emotions that occur throughout the trial process. Frankel states” the courtroom explodes as people spring up at several tables shouting objections, usually loudly because they are in some haste and heat to cut off forbidden answers” (Frankel, 1976, p. 472). The attorney’s main goals throughout the trail is to ensure a win for their client leading to competitiveness between both parties. Attorneys do not want to hear they are wrong and always need to be one step ahead of their competitors. This causes the commotion and tense emotions that is usually seen in courts.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

If the trial judge did not exclude the evidence from the trial, then the Supreme Court must overturn the conviction. In some cases, the accused will be retried without the use of the illegally obtained evidence. In other cases, there will not be a retrial because the illegally obtained evidence was the basis of the prosecution's case. The story of the birth and evolution of the exclusionary rule is complex and demonstrates the unique problems the Supreme Court has had to face when interpreting the Fourth Amendment."

Johnson further maintains that the circuit court erred by admitting documents that were not properly authenticated. The State counters that “the appearance and contents of each of the documents contained sufficient information from which the factfinder could have reasonably concluded that the document was what the State purported it to be.” We hold that the documents admitted against Johnson were properly authenticated.

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

The human brain is a remarkably intricate organ. Therefore, simple mutations in its complexity can result in devastating conditions leading to acts of violence. Kinkel, a fifteen-year-old boy, demonstrates his partaking in the unnecessary murders of both his parents and innocent bystanders. Kinkel is said to have shown signs of his intentions through inconspicuous matters. Later holding the guilt of four deaths and twenty-six attempts via semi-automatic weaponry (para. 5). The mental instability of the subject is proven to be in effect, and a suitable cause for these behaviors. The document in question is “The State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel”, in which encompasses a trial the young boy capable of murder. Kinkel is convicted of the absolute minimal sentence for the nature of his crimes, followed by his seemly confession. The defense and prosecution contemplate proper arguments given the defendants substantial witnesses to the crimes and articles of law. Justice is debated among the courts and how to satisfy these reprimands. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the higher courts decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Next Larson explores the role the ACLU played in the Scopes Trial. They saw the Scopes trial as a means to advance the rights of laborers and academic freedom using the First Amendment. Clarence Darrow, when he heard that William Jennings Bryan would be prosecuting the trial, eagerly joined the ACLU defense team. Darrow claimed that he was fighting for individual rights but he was also obsessed in his determination to overturn the fundamentalist adherence to creationism. Larson delves deep into the internal documents of the ACLU to reveal how difficult it was to control Darrow and keep the case centered on a test of the law, not creationism. By revealing the ACLU’s agenda, Larson effectively shows that the Scopes trial was a battle between the concept of majority rule and individual rights.

“In Barker v. Wingo, the Court stressed the legitimate reasons for the 16 trial continuances. But is there a danger that prosecutors might illegitimately seek continuances?”

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

The New York Times bestseller book titled Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case examines the O.J. Simpson criminal trial of the mid-1990s. The author, Alan M. Dershowitz, relates the Simpson case to the broad functions and perspectives of the American criminal justice system as a whole. A Harvard law school teacher at the time and one of the most renowned legal minds in the country, Dershowitz served as one of O.J. Simpson’s twelve defense lawyers during the trial. Dershowitz utilizes the Simpson case to illustrate how today’s criminal justice system operates and relates it to the misperceptions of the public. Many outside spectators of the case firmly believed that Simpson committed the