Introduction: The case McCulloch v. Maryland was one that began in the state of Maryland, and eventually was decided upon at the national level, via the Supreme Court, in 1819. It would assert national supremacy over that of state action in areas where the constitution granted forms of authority.
Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?
The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took
Wabash v Illinois In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce
There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),” the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the
Buck vs. Bell 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 Notably, the ruling of this case was based on the concept of feeblemindedness, which is no longer applicable in medical terminology.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.
Prosecutors play a critical role in determining a defendant’s guilt. Despite this role, the powers ascribed to prosecutors have long been debated. In the 1960’s and 1970’s the United States Supreme Court sought to clarify the powers ascribed to prosecutors in three cases. These cases included: Brady v. Maryland 373 U.S. 83, Giglio v. United States 405 U.S. 150, and the United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97. Although the issue explored by the Supreme Court differed in each of these cases, the verdict in each case helped to clarify whether or not prosecutors in the United States had the right to suppress evidence.
The name of the case is District of Columbia et al. v. Heller.The plaintiff Dick Heller; District of Columbia is defendant . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided this case in 2008. Heller, D.C. special policeman, applied to a record certification from the city of Washington, D.C. for a handgun, which he wanted to hold it at home. A statute of Washington, D.C. banned having a gun within doors with no license, and it also demanded any legitimate handgun conserved at home to be extended inactive via take of a trigger-lock. The defendant, District of Columbia,disclaimed claim of Heller for a record certification established on its law. Dick Heller then has filed a suit in a court of Federal district for the District of Columbia, reasoning that the city’s trial on the
The Maryland Supreme Court ruled against segregation at the University of Maryland Law School. The case, Murray vs. Pearson had been attacking the school legally since that summer and successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray.
1. McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819), the constitutional questions asked were: Did congress have the right to establish a bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally with the congressional powers? In 1816, congress chartered The Second National Bank of the United States. In 1818, Maryland passed legislation to tax the bank and cashier of the Baltimore branch bank James MucCulloch refused to pay the tax. This court case took place in the Marshall court, under federalist, Chief Justice John Marshall who ruled this case in favor of MucCulloch. The court’s decision was unanimous in favor of MucCulloch and, the courts held that Congress had the power to establish a bank but Maryland could not tax the bank and that the power to tax is the power to destroy.
In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Mr. John Barron (Plaintiff), sued the city of Baltimore, Maryland (Defendant) for taking his property without compensation. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had ruined his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor by redirecting the streams by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project (1). The plaintiff argued that the city’s activities had made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most water crafts. As a result, the plaintiff felt his Fifth Amendment right had been violated because the government took his property without just compensation. The state court of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore had unconstitutionally disadvantaged
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. _ (2014) decision by Roberts Courts (2010) FACTS: Hobby Lobby, a national arts and craft chain with more than 500 stores and 13,000 employees is owned and operated by the Green family. Under the Oklahoma law, Hobby Lobby is organized as a for profit corporation. The structure of the business is based off t of the principles of the Christian faith. One of the briefs of the Christian faith is that the use of contraception is immoral.
2. REQUEST, REASON, ISSUES, BOARD TYPE, AND DECISION: The applicant requests an upgrade of his uncharacterized discharge to honorable. The applicant states, in effect, he served for four years in the National Guard and deployed to Afghanistan in 2005 thru 2006. The applicant contends, he enlisted upon redeployment despite having Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms and other medical problems. The applicant states, he requested counseling for his PTSD, instead he received a counseling statement informing him that he would receive an entry level status (ELS) separation with an uncharacterized discharge. The applicant further contends, he was diagnosed with PTSD and rated 40 percent disabled rating by the VA for PTSD. The applicant states, he had held a position as the communications sergeant with the McAllen Police Department after being discharged. The applicant contends, he is an upstanding member of the community has never been in trouble with the law, and this is evidence of his desire to serve. The applicant further contends, he served his country honorably as an infantry Soldier and an uncharacterized discharge for PTSD is wrong. The applicant states, an honorable discharge would do justice for the unfortunate administrative action taken against him in September 2006.
Being the basis of the judicial system, someone is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) it was determined that the prosecution must share information with the defense that shows the defense in a positive light or that
The Brady Doctrine governs all criminal trials which are a state, and federal in deterring prosecutorial misconduct (Hall, 2015). I strongly agree with the importance of this doctrine. It allows constitutional laws to uphold the disclosure of information without violating one’s due process right. This piece of philosophical evidence grants reasonable probability to be permissible in a court of law which might exonerate a defendant. The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland in 1963 in favor of a defendant (Hall, 2015). The doctrine required that prosecutors must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case in order to prove their innocence.