The United States Case: Brady Vs. Maryland

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.

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.

I disagree, each state has the power to create it’s own bank and in McCulloch v. Maryland the rights of the bank were ignored.

(1) Constitutional Question: Does Article 1, Section 8, The Coefficient Clause, give congress the ability to establish a national bank and does the Maryland law implementing a tax on the Baltimore Branch violate these privileges?

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.

The Board’s mission is to conduct hearings and decide appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner. 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 7101(a). The Board’s jurisdiction extends to all questions in matters involving a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects a provision of benefits by the Secretary to Veterans, their dependents, or their Survivors. 38 U.S.C. §§ 511(a); 7104(a).

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 Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

Dred Scott, an enslaved African American from Virginia, worked most of his life on a cotton plantation in Alabama owned by Army surgeon, Dr. John Emerson. Scott went along with his owners to Illinois and later out to the Wisconsin Territory, where the act of slavery was illegal. Later on, the family moved back to Missouri where the doctor eventually died. After this experience, Dred Scott, with the help of antislavery lawyers and his old owners, filed for his freedom. Scott felt that he was a free man due to him once living in a free area for four years. Years passed until one fateful day when Scott’s case reached the Supreme Court.

This case came about because John Brady was convicted and sentenced for the crime of murder along with another man, and it was found after the sentencing that the prosecutor did not turn over a crucial piece of evidence to the defense which included a confession by the other man. During the appeal process on behalf of Mr. Brady the “Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution denied petitioner due process of law and remanded the case for a retrial of the question of punishment, not the question of guilt. 226 Md. 422, 174 A.2d 167” (U.S. Supreme Court, 2015). By the prosecution withholding this piece of evidence Mr. Brady was denied his Fourteenth Amendment right of due process. Because of this case The Brady Rule was formed and that states;

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

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

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

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.

The rules of evidence are prescribed by Congress and can be found in Title 28 of the