The case PAPPAS v. GIULIANI is one of the many cases Sonia Sotomayor has been involved in. In this case, Sotomayor was in favor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff Thomas Pappas was a former police officer and worked for the New York City police department (NYPD). Pappas began working for the NYPD in January 25, 1982 until his termination on August 18, 1999. He began as a patrol officer and moved his way up to a civilian computer operator. Pappas was fired for anonymously mailing from his home racially offensive political materials to political and other groups that had solicited him for donations. Leagle mentions that Pappas began mailing offensive articles in 1996 to the MAPD’s solicitation campaign. His letters included different articles and cartoons …show more content…
According to FindLaw, when the trial was held Pappas defended himself by saying that he sent the materials because he was protesting and was tired of being shaken down for money. Pappas saw his letters as a form of protest. Pappas sued the NYCPD because the termination violated his First Amendment rights. However, Commissioner Martinez provided her decision on June 25, 1999, finding Pappas guilty of conduct and recommending. Martinez states that the plaintiff’s conduct did not amount to protected speech on a matter of public concern and alternatively. Also, mentioned that the potential for disruption in the NYPD outweighed the value of the purported …show more content…
She believed that Pappas’ rights were being violated. Although she found his mails to be, “Offensive, hateful, and insulting” she did not let that affect her decision. According to Huffpost, Sotomayor’s opinion in the Pappas v Giuliani case did not seem like a judicial cause. On the other hand, EPIC states “ Judge Sotomayor dissent focused on the anonymous nature of Pappas’s speech and the fact that the speech took place when he was off duty” (https://epic.org/Sotomayor). EPIC mentions how Sotomayor pointed out that Pappas’s identity would not have been revealed, but the police department investigated and made it public. She believes that Pappas has all the right to speak anonymously. Sotomayor also indicated that the only reason Pappas was terminated from the NYPD was due to his case being public, which in turn, brings negative attention to the
Joseph P. Reilly filed a complaint against Gwynne G. Zisko, Esq., on or about April 8, 2016. Reilly asserts that Zisko violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by serving a subpoena on his employer, the Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department. The details of the case relating to the subpoena will be discussed further on in this report. Within the complaint, Reilly alleges that Zisko has violated Mass.R.Prof.C. 3.4, as well as 4.4.
My Response. I think the court made the right decision by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgement as to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim, since her gender was not a contributing factor in this case. However, regarding the law in this case, I find it strange that just because Lynch treated both men and women equally badly, this would nullify Smith’s claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment, when such harassment clearly took place. Why does the harassment have to be towards one sex only for there to be a valid legal case? Should it not be enough that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment?
Two years later, the former undercover New York City narcotics detective testified in the Brooklyn Supreme Court, that the Brooklyn South and Queens narcotic squads had been framing innocent people routinely by planting evidence, in order to reach arrest quotas. “It was something I was seeing a lot of, whether it was from supervisors or undercovers and even investigators” , he recounted during his
Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) was an appeal of suit brought by two sets of parents on behalf of their children after it was discovered that Samuel Bracigliano, the children 's’ former principal at Gilbert Avenue Elementary School in Elmwood
Her appeal was later focused on the search and seizure violations of her Fourth Amendment right. Her appeal made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mapp v.
In the case of U.S. v Jones, the judicial branch had to address the questionable topic of whether or not the Fourth Amendment was violated (). Since this case was not black and white and did bring up many questions as to what was constitutional, the judges had to use judicial review. Judicial review is the power that allows judges to interpret the meaning of laws (Class, March 13). Once a law is understood a certain way, the people must follow it (Class, __). The U.S. v Jones case deals with the Bill of Rights (United, 1). This is due to the circumstance that the Fourth Amendment is included in the Bill of Rights document stating that “searches and seizures” cannot be done without a warrant (Class,___). The case of U.S. v Jones was about the violation of Jones’s Fourth Amendment when a GPS device was placed on his jeep without his consent because he was suspected of drug possession (United, 1). Since judges have the power to informally amend the Constitution using judicial review (Class, ___), they must take into consideration many contributing elements when making a decision.
In an article written by a Senior student they discuss a monumental moment in Mexican American history concerning equality in the South. The student’s paper revolves around the Pete Hernandez V. Texas case in which Hernandez receives a life in prison sentence by an all white jury. The essay further discusses how Mexican Americans are technically “white” americans because they do not fall into the Indian (Native American), or black categories and because of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848. The student’s paper proceeds to discuss the goals connecting the Hernandez V. Texas case which was to secure Mexican American’s right within the fourteenth amendment [1].
Justice was not served in the controversial nature of the Bernhard Goetz subway shooting trial. After shooting four black teenagers, Bernhard Goetz turned himself into the police in Concord, New Hampshire. He was denominated, “The Subway Vigilante”. This case was brought to court approximately two years later, where Bernhard Goetz would ultimately be voted guilty of one count of illegal firearms possession, and served just six months in jail. Following the trials, questions are still being asked if justice has been served.
Defense attorney, Katie Krejci argued that the state attorney, Maureen Feeney, and the police department didn’t provide the disciplinary file of officer Taylor Siljander, the plaintiff, in a timely manner.
Case (previous): The case Gideon V Wainwright was a case in which Clarence Earl Gideon was charged of break in, with the intent to commit a misdemeanor. Eye Witness Henry Crook was at the pool house at the time the break in occurred. He testified saying the he say Gideon walk into the pool house heard shattering noises and left, in his hand held a bottle of wine, and he could hear loads of coins in his pockets. He watched Gideon wait for a taxi and leave. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison.
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Locallo describes the Bridgeport case as being a “heater case”, not only because of the social impact that it will create in the community, but also because of all the media attention it will receive which will influence his possible reelection once his term is over (Courtroom 302, 31). When Frank Caruso Jr. decided that he was going to beat Lenard Clark, an African American boy he created the spark that society needed to get back at the Caruso family for all of the crimes that they got away with in the past. During the past several decades, society has tried to make the Caruso family take responsibility for their crimes, but all those efforts just strengthened the family ties and political positions.
... the second trial which included both Sacco and Vanzetti, Thayer said to reporters, "Did you ever see a case in which so many leaflets and circulars have been spread...saying people couldn't get a fair trial in Massachusetts? You wait till I give my charge to the jury, I'll show them!"[122].
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
The captivity of slaves as one’s property was orginally enforced by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, although it still did not address those who might assist a slave’s escape. Titled “An Act respecting the fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters”, this law officially permitted the recapture of slaves who escaped to northern free states. Therefore, former slaves were at risk of recapture for all their lives. Moreover, children of escaped slave mothers were made lifelong property of the mother’s master. Numerous northern states authorized enactment to secure free dark Americans - who could somehow or another be kidnapped, then conveyed under the steady gaze of court without the capacity to create a protection, and in this manner legitimately oppressed - and also runaway slaves. These laws came to be known as "personal liberty laws" and required slave proprietors and outlaw seekers to deliver confirm that their catches were genuinely criminal slaves, "similarly as southern states requested the privilege to recover runaway slaves, northern states requested the privilege to shield their free dark occupants from being abducted and sold into subjugation in the South.” A controversial example may be the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Edward Prigg was a citizen of Maryland and had been arraigned by a Pennsylvania court for trying to capture a black woman in York County to send her to Maryland as a fugitive slave. He was attempted and indicted by a local court in Pennsylvania, yet the case was finally appealed to the Supreme Court.