The Little Rascals Case : State V. Robert Kelly And The Martinsville Trial

In the past, the jury learned from the forensic scientists’ testimony; but now, they’re learning from television and a lot of reality shows. Consequently, what they’re learning is not necessarily what is actually done (Honeycutt). However, those jurors who watch criminal investigation television shows do believe that what they’re seeing on TV is what does go on in real life and they expect to see it in court. This is because, according to Shelton, “the more frequently jurors watched a given program, the more accurate they perceived it to be.”

The Scottsboro trials happened in the 1931 and dragged on for years. These cases were solely based on the prejudice surrounding blacks and gender. The cases presented in the Scottsboro Film represented the fight for justice. Nine boys were wrongfully arrested and imprisoned for years while society used these young black mens oppression to further its own agenda.These cases ruined the life of nine young men but they also helped make dramatic, vital changes in the criminal justice system and the constitution. The misfortune of the nine men tried and convicted during this time opened the eyes of so many blind to the injustice that african americans suffer from still to this day. The Scottsboro trials greatly defined the future of the criminal

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.

Trials do this in many ways, one way is by letting both sides speak. Whenever there is a problem the first thing that happens is that both sides of the problem have a story. Trials let both sides tell there story, therefore resolving the conflict. Trials also seek the truth to provide justice for the side that is “hurt.” The interface between science and law are so testy because science provides an answer and the law seems to always want to stretch the answer and bend the words. Law takes the science and tries to make it appear as the law wants. Science and law also have a testy interface because science continues to push the law to the limit. Expert witnesses are sages. They are sages because they tell the truth, the holy truth, and nothing but the truth. They provide the solution the problem and end the dispute. An expert witness can make or break a trial depending if you are prosecuting or defending. For a jury, the choice of experts or peers comes down to a few things. One of the things being the situation you are in and which way you want the jury to be persuaded toward. If it is a sad case, like this one, you would want peers that would have feelings and would feel bad and give the people more and help them. If you were trying to prove something you would want experts because they would feel less and be less affected by feelings. Citizens have a voice in government but the

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 United States’ attention was captivated on the Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama during the 1930s. During the time period, this case revealed the brutal treatment towards African Americans more than any other event. The case began on March 25, 1931, when a group of young white and African American youths were traveling on a train to find a job. A physical encounter broke out between them and the white youths were thrown out of the train. Then they reported the incident to a stationmaster, who stopped the train. The police arrived to gather the nine African Americans and brought them to jail. Nine young African Americans were recognized as the “Scottsboro boys”. They were accused of rape of two white women on that train. The white jury convicted eight of them, all except one, the youngest at 12-years-old, and were sentenced to death. These youths were falsely charged with raping two white women in Alabama. Although there was no evidence that linked the African Americans to the white women, they were still charged with sexual assault. The two women -- fearing prosecution for their sexual relationship with the white men agreed to testify against the black youths. The Supreme Court Case of Powell vs Alabama is crucial in both Civil Rights history and in the evolution of the Constitution.

“We knew in advance the parole hearing would be a smah, sham. just something for the media to distort [sic]” (Ray). These were the words written by James Earl Ray to my uncle in one of eight letters which was dated June 8th, 1994, in which they correspond with each other in regards to the case of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Personally, I believe that Ray’s case does not show true justice of the court system we have in place. His repeated denial of a real trial, despite support from the King family, suggests that he may have been innocent, and that the truth was being covered up. This shows how the court system can put someone who may be innocent into prison without even giving him or her a fair trial.

It has been shown that eyewitness misidentification is one of the biggest factors in wrongful convictions, which has been overturned due to DNA (Innocence). Forensic evidence is one of the factors used to determine ones’ guilt or innocence in the court of law; however, some of the evidence used can pose a problem in court. Eye witness testimony has caused a lot of faults in court cases because it is portrayed as a strong factor of evidence. Eye witness testimony should not be used as primary evidence because of how unreliable, misidentified, and the impact it can have in the court of law. Eyewitness identification should have different alternatives in how it should be presented to the witness so that bias is not present.

Troy Gregg was charged with committing armed robbery and murder. The jury found him guilty of both and sentenced him to death. Gregg challenged his remaining death sentence for murder, appealing that his capital sentence was a cruel and unusual punishment that violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Court's earlier ruling in Furman v. Georgia (1972) which struck down state systems that afforded juries sweeping discretion in imposing the death penalty would spell the end of capital punishment in the United States. Many states, including Georgia, however, responded to the Furman ruling by passing new death penalty laws. The Georgia General Assembly, however,

The supreme court case Dred Scott v. Sanford had two issues standing before it. First, Was Dred Scott a citizen of the US and thereby entitled to sue in federal court for the protection of his rights? Second, Did Scott’s residence in free territory make him free? Dred Scott was an African American man born into slavery in Missouri who was the property of Dr. Emerson. Although, Emerson died which gave Scott the chance to sue Emerson’s widow in a Missouri court to declare him free. After the court’s debate, the decision was made that, Dred Scott, was still property and he had no right to be in the supreme court. The south was delighted from this choice in the supreme court. On the other hand, the north was very angry with this decision. The decision

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

North Carolina, the concurrence states, “If the statue is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgement requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake.” Based on this statement, it gives us support to consider whether Officer Raymond’s stop was objectively reasonable or not. Also, The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Since the creation of baseball, the game has been America’s favorite pastime. Baseball has fostered connections throughout generations and has a rich history that goes beyond the surface of the general game. Although slavery was no longer a concern during the peak of baseball, the culturally iconic game was not always integrated. Some African-Americans were allowed and able to play on predominantly white teams, but unfortunately racism was still an issue for most.

The Scottsboro Boys were nine African American teenagers accused of raping two White American women on a train in Alabama in 1931. These were landmark legal cases due to this incident dealing with racism and the right to a fair trial. The cases included a lynch mob before suspects had even been indicted, all-white juries, rushed trials, and hostile disruptive mobs. It is often regarded as a grave example of a miscarriage of justice in the U.S. legal system.

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