In the Washington v Texas case, Jackie Washington the petitioner and another defendant were charged with murder. They were convicted of murder with malice and was sentenced by jury to a 50 year jail sentence. He was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend jean carter at her residence on Aug 29, 1964. It wasn’t clear whether the petitioner or Charles fuller fired the shot that fatally wounded the deceased. When Washington attempted to call Fuller as a defense witness, the prosecution objected on the ground that state law barred codefendants from testifying in each other’s behalf. Prevented from calling Fuller, who would have testified that he was the one who fired the shot that fatally killed the decease. Because Washington had fled the scene
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
In the case of People v. Vasquez, a horrible crime was committed by the defendant, Jesus Vasquez, because he was upset with his girlfriend, Abigail Ramirez, for leaving him and allegedly seeing her ex-boyfriend. Instead of choosing to talk to his ex-girlfriend, Abigail Ramirez, he decided to forcefully break into her home, push her mother down on to the ground, then chase Abigail to the restroom where he violently and horrendously murdered her. There were many primary and secondary victims in this case and left people in pain from his terrible criminal act. Although the defense tries to prove that it was Heat of Passion and that the defendant did not know what he was doing, the evidence proves otherwise. The video shows evidence of shared
Does the first amendment overrule the Texas law that forbids the desecration of a venerated object under these circumstances?
Most Americans would claim a cop killer should be put to death which is what Scott D Cheever will face if he loses in the Supreme Court of the United States. Scott D Cheever and the state of Kansas argued before Supreme Court of the United States on October 16, 2013. The question posed before the court was when a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the state violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant? The answer is no, the United States Supreme Court should reverse the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court because his fifth amendment’s rights were not violated.
Constitutional Question: Does the State of Maryland have the power, under Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1 and 18, to impose taxes on an institution created by Congress? Does Congress have the power under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution to establish a bank?
One of the biggest pushes for this change in the judicial system, was the Thompson Vs. Cotton case. Ronald Cotton was accused of raping twenty two year old college student, Jennifer Thompson. During a lecture at Ferris State University, Thompson recalled thinking over and over again that “once I [survive] and live, I will make sure that I know everything about you […] to help the police find you”. Little did she know, the man that she chose in both picture and physical lineup was an innocent man.
To this day, Americans have many rights and privileges. Rights stated in the United States constitution may be simple and to the point, but the rights Americans have may cause debate to whether or not something that happens in society, is completely reasonable. The Texas v. Johnson case created much debate due to a burning of the American Flag. One may say the burning of the flag was tolerable because of the rights citizens of the United States have, another may say it was not acceptable due to what the American flag symbolizes for America. (Brennan and Stevens 1). Johnson was outside of his First Amendment rights, and the burning of the American flag was unjust due to what the flag means to America.
Would you risk throwing away your life because you wanted help with a murder you could have done alone? Ask yourself that. That brings me to this case of first degree murder of Hae Min Lee in Baltimore in 1999 which ended in the wrongful conviction of her ex Adnan Syed. The only witness to the entire crime changed their story on 3 different occasions when being questioned. Another lost witness was never batted an eye at. Despite all of the wrongdoing by everyone else , the convicted was charged mainly off phone records and one’s word against another’s.
In simple terms, a state attorney general is essentially the state’s lawyer, but he/she has many more responsibilities than that. It should come as no surprise that a state as large as Texas requires a lot of its government officials. A person in this position is the chief legal officer and is charged with protecting the interests of the state. This is typically done through giving legal advice or court proceedings. As the state’s lawyer, they can advise other Texas government agencies on how to make sure they are operating legally. More commonly, lawyers usually operate in court, and the attorney general is no different. If the state of Texas is ever directly involved in a case, the attorney general represents their state in both local and federal courtrooms such as taxes owed to the state or against those that violate any environmental-protection laws ("Attorney General," 2010). Being in the executive branch, the Texas attorney general reports to the governor: “The attorney general shall report to the governor on the first Monday of December of each even-numbered year. The report must include the following information for the preceding two years: (1) a summary of the cases in which the state was a party that was acted on by the supreme court and court of criminal appeals; and (2) a summary of civil cases in which the state was a party that were prosecuted or defended by the attorney general
Our supreme court has been around for decades for the purpose of interpreting the law. Supreme court justices go through years of school and extensive work in order to receive the honorary position. The opinions, of supreme court justices, are highly respected and trusted. However, that does not mean that every decision that is made, is the right decision. Interpreting the law depends on the time period, current laws, morals and a list of other aspects of America’s society, at the time the law is being interpreted. Based on what the current law and morals were, I will dissect the best and worst supreme court decisions.
In the early 1950’s, the number of executions sharply declined. Opponents of the death penalty claimed that it violated the Eighth Amendment, which forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Opponents also claimed the death penalty violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. In early 1972, William Furman was convicted of burglary and murder. While Furman was burglarizing a home, a resident arrived at the scene. Startled, Furman tried to flee, but tripped and fell in the process. The gun Furman was carrying discharged, killing the resident in the process. Furman did not believe he deserved the death penalty. The constitutionality of capital punishment in this circumstance was considered in the supreme co...
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
For over two years, Wallace’s trial was delayed because of “DNA evidence from murdered victims, and jury selection” (Montaldo). Not only was there meticulous choosing of the jury to avoid bias, but there was also careful analyzation of the evidence to assure that the trial was sound. Of January 7, 199, the jury found Wallace guilty of “nine counts of first-degree murder, each on the basis of malice, premeditation, and deliberation, and under the felony murder rule” (“FindLaw’s Supreme Court of North Carolina Case and Opinions”). These nine counts of murder were decided by a open-minded, neutral jury, we know this because of the long time taken to select the jury. Gaskins argued that two of the jurors should have been dismissed because they claimed that he should be given the verdict of execution; but when inspected wholly, both jurors gave no opinion to Gaskins “guilt or innocence in the present case” (“State V. Gaskins”). Every claim that Gaskins made about the jury, the Supreme Court examined fully, which caused the jurors selected to be people who have no opinion of the case. Avoiding bias and making the trial even more honest in deciding Gaskins’ fate. Gaskins’ and Wallace’s verdict being decided by a jury rather than a judge, shows that not just one person person who made a decision about their fates, but it was many people who shared the same perception of these
The Texas Judiciary system is made up of several layers of courts and its structure is laid out in how it should be followed in the Texas Constitution. It is defined better in the Texas Government Code and the Texas Probate Code.
Texas politics is long and at times very complicated, due to the amount of state constitutions they have gone through, especially the one we follow today. The first state constitution was in 1827 before Texas gained its independence from Mexico, due to the fighting and Texas achieving its independence in 1836 a new constitution had to be adopted. A few years later a new constitution was needed when Texas joined the United States in 1845. However, when Texas seceded from the United States at the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, a new constitution had to be drafted. After the civil war in 1866, yet another constitution had to be written for Texas to re-join the union. Three years later during the reconstruction of 1869, Republicans took control