Violation of Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Rights

The court's decision was that it was wrong of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny the inmate's right to appeal the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the murderer was most likely the husband and not Paul Gregory House (“House v. Bell”). The case decision would cause the denial of habeas corpus to be removed and the case would be instated with the help of the new evidence.

Ruling: The Supreme Court held that withholding evidence violated the process where the evidence is crucial either to guilt or to punishment. The court also determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant, but was material to the level of punishment he would be given.

This violation being in the form of a videotape, which could have completely changed the outcome of the case. On this videotape there was a full confession from Ricky Simmons. Barney Ward knew all about this videotape (as it was shared with him along with all other information) yet he chose not to bring this evidence to the table and share it with the jury. Judge Jones ruled that the tape was not a Brady violation. “The tape was not really hidden; it was handed over after the trial, sort of a delayed submission (Grisham pg. 258)”.This one piece of evidence alone would have been enough to change the opinions of the jury and change the outcome of the trail. However because Barney Ward did NOT show this video, this is a clear violation of Mr. Williamson’s 6th Amendment, which guarantees that in all criminal prosecutions there must be an “effective” assistance of counsel (Cole and Smith pg. 84). In my opinion at no point in this trial was Ron Williamson’s attorney an “effective assistance of counsel”.

The court decision on Roe Vs Wade violated the due process clause of 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment says that no states are allowed to take away the privacy rights of its citizens. The court said that the taxes law violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

In Brady v. Maryland, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not the prosecutors had the right to suppress evidence that may have helped the defendant. Specifically, two defendants, Boblit and Brady were charged with murder. Both defendants had separate trials. The first defendant to stand trial was Boblit, who admitted his guilt. In Brady’s trial,

Did you know Evidence that is obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment is usually not admissible in court? It’s actually interesting how this works. The amendment i chose is the 4th one because i like my persons and properties protected. This right was put in the bill of rights because there were to many unreasonable searches and seizures. To me i feel this right is used today to keep the searches and seizures under control. I think the 4th amendment may be under attack by the officers who do illegal searches and violate the amendments.

There is no doubt that the founding fathers were deeply religious. George Washington once wrote, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are.” John Adams said, “Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…. What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!” Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.” So, how do we know that they wanted their new nation to follow their personal beliefs,

This a direct violation of of the fourth amendment in the Bill of rights. This amendment states that there is no search or seizures without warrants. Therefore I as a citizen of the United States of America am allowed to have my personal property in my personal bag without it being searched or taken away from me. This was one of the most important laws to create to the founding fathers who were tired of unwarranted arrest and seizure of possession. So, i believe this is unconstitutional and a violation of my civil and unalienable rights ( that means no person can take them away).

A mere violation of Defendant’s own policies, procedures, rules, regulations or State law, does not provide a basis for a due process violation.

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 would help the defendants case if they are requested by the defense. Prior to Brady’s admission in the crime he and his counsel requested from the prosecution any statements that were made by the man that Brady stated did the actual killing. The prosecution provided some of the statements but did not provide the statement where the other man admitted that he committed the murder. Since the prosecution had withheld this statement from the defense, Brady’s

The main issue in this case is that the police may not perform a warrantless search anywhere you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to obtain evidence against you in court. There are some exceptions to a warrantless search such as if action is immediately necessary to prevent physical harm, preserve evidence or prevent a suspect from escaping, abandoned properties or if the suspect voluntarily lets police inside.

Defendants are known to waive certain constitutional rights for a plea bargain. For instance, the Brady evidence was comprised of exculpatory or impeachment evidence that proved the innocence of the defendant [2]. Under the case of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court mandate the prosecutors to inform defendants about the evidence [2]. In 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that it was unlawful for prosecutors to withhold information on the grounds of the defendant refusal to waive his

Alabama’s state constitution calls for a reapportionment every ten years. But, in 1961 the state had not been reapportioned since 1901. This upset many Alabama residents. Roughly one-fourth of the state’s population could vote for the majority of the state senators and representatives. Finally, M.O. Sims and many other residents of Jefferson County, Alabama challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. They sued state officials in federal district court stating that this malapportionment denied them equal voting rights. They believed that this imbalance diluted their votes. They argued that some ratios of people to legislatures were as high as fourteen to one in senate districts and up to sixteen to one in the lower house.

While we must have due processes in place, we must make these processes smoother and not be so rigorous. Also for immigrants already taking part in our system not only should they be afforded equal rights to natural citizens but should be afforded citizenship as well. Most immigrants who do try an enter the country the correct way know it may take years before citizenship is granted to you and in some cases I’ve heard it taking up to 10 years. Although the due process is a necessary evil, most immigrants are coming from third world countries or conditions so extreme they are forced to flee to America. So why have we yet to allocate the resources to government branches to give them the staffing needed and resources to process these applications in a timely matter? For one

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was conscripted to safeguard the right to be free from governmental imposition. Devoid of a warrant and authentic probable cause, an officer cannot go into a home and search it. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures and enforces both a meticulousness and probable cause requirement for issuing warrants. The fourth amendment seems to be fitting for the early immigrants. Discrimination is a very serious problem for society even back to date. People do discriminate against each other whether their actions are intentional or happen due to the lack of knowledge or elaborate sociological triggers as well as societal misconceptions and personal obliviousness. During early immigration, immigrants were receiving this treatment more than ever according to Multicultural Reading in Context writer’s Barbara Roche Rico and Sandra Mano states, “As soon as they arrived, immigrant families were detained at the immigration center for a series of debasing questions and medical examinations” (Rico and Mano 160). There is no type of privacy shown here. As far as historical records show, no society or nation has been invulnerable to discrimination, either as victim or victimizer. In all countries there is at least one type of discrimination that impacts diverse groups of people. During this time in the 1800s even the Fourth Amendment was null in void to most Americans concerning immigrants especially at the