James Otis & Writs of Assistance
In February 1761, in front of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, which included John Adams at that time, James Otis fought about the use of writs, representing the merchants of Boston. He objected writs along with the merchants that he represented, and so it was when he was in the hearing, he told the court that he refused any compensation the merchants tried to give him for representing them on the fact that “in such a cause he despised all fees” (“James Otis: Against Writs of Assistance”).
He compared the use of writs as being on the same level of slavery and said that it was the “worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty… that ever was found in an English law-book” (“James Otis: Against Writs of Assistance”). He admitted that he believes in writs only given for a special place, like warrants given under probably cause. It is however with normal writs that Otis is against.
Arguing that its power is too great for it, Otis offered four points directly showing its oppressive abilities it grants its holder on everyone else. It allows the holder whether it be a justice or an officer to be a vengeful ruler. Additionally while in that state they could do anything they would want to. The holder could enter any place and command all those within it to follow their direction. To
…show more content…
Each overlooking a colony or multiple colonies, they were involved in maritime law. The court operated in that there were no jurors present at all during the trial and instead the judge acted as both the judge and the jury in the trial. They heard all the evidence presented to them and rendered a verdict on whether the defendant was guilty or not. It removed any impartialness that a jury would have and left the verdict to the judge 's bias. They were supposed to resolve conflicts between merchants and seamen, while enforcing trade
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
The case of The People Vs. Hall in 1854, was about George Hall a white miner, who murdered Ling Sing a chinese miner, over a dispute that they had. It was disputed in the California Supreme Court in 1854, with the majority of opinion delivered by Chief Justice Hugh Murray with the concurrence of Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt. In the hearing, George hall appealed to the verdict, arguing that the 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases provides that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action or åproceeding in which a white person is a party. The issue with this appeal was that the 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, did not included chinese or any other different ethnic background that was not listed in that section. For Chinese did not immigrated to America, until 1852, in which they were coming for work after the economic fall out of the Opium War of 1840.
The court system was used by Queen Elizabeth to display her power. There were three
“In one section, at least of our common country, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people means a government by the mob” (Hitzeroth and Leon 13). This is an excerpt from a newspaper article written by reporter Ida B. Wells-Barnett, who was reviewing the conditions in which the African Americans were being treated in the South during the early 1900s (Hitzeroth and Leon 12). Thurgood Marshall overcame discrimination by pursuing his dreams of going into law despite the racism around him at the time, becoming the first African-American Supreme Court Judge, and fighting for equal rights for all people.
Ernst, Joseph Albert. Money and politics in America, 1755–1775; a study in the Currency act of
The differing perspectives on the nature of these conceptions was certainly apparent with the implementation of the Writs of Assistance. According to the colonists, the Writs had violated their rights as English citizens, an identity Parliament no longer recognized. In his appearance before the Supreme Court of England, James Otis
Before the American Revolution, significant opposition to slavery already existed. James Otis, a Massachusetts lawyer emblemized this strain of thought when he wrote about the rights of natural born citizens and men. He argued that a man, black or white, should be guaranteed, as British subjects, the same rights and liberties. These liberties should protect men from slavery and afford them the rights guaranteed by the British Crown. Many other American colonists shared this attitude of abolitionism, however their reasoning relied on religious beliefs rather than modern political theory. A letter written by Phillis Wheatley to a Reverend exemplifies this justification for abolition. The letter expressed appreciation for the Reverend’s abolitionist views, but also compared the current situation to those of the Israelites when the Egyptians enslaved them. A parallel to the Bible furthered the view for many that slavery was unjust. This combination of Enlightenment ideals of natural righ...
Hartog, Hendrik. "The Public law of a County Court: Judicial Government in Eighteenth Century Massachusetts." American Journal of Legal History, XX (1976), 282-329
During the late 1700’s, rules and regulations were placed to subdue the colonies and raise money after the French-and-Indian war, as too Britain’s Seven-Year-War. In replace of the Stamp Act of 1765, a new act, under the financial leader, Charles Townshend, the Townshend Acts were added to place a tax upon certain imported goods. The Townshend Acts was implemented to raise revenue for the civil government. This act placed a tax onto glass, lead, painters, colors, paper, and tea imported into the colonies. These “external” taxes would raise 40,000 Euros to pay commissioners of customs. People argued toward the act for raising revenue, or used to pay royal officials in the colonies. Britain sent a seven-hundred pocket army to protect those customs, which angered the colonists. Later, the Massachusetts legislature wrote the Circular Letter to send to Britain, issuing that one cannot be taxed without direct representation. Adding on to the Townshend Acts’ mayhem was the ...
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
The court system is composed of lawyers, judges, and juries. Their job is to ensure that everyone receives a fair trial, determine guilt or innocence, and apply sentences to guilty parties. The court system will contain one judge, and a jury of twelve citizens. The jury of the court will determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. The jury will also recommend a sentence for the crime the individual committed.
With that said after the Constitutional Convention was signed in 1787, President Washington felt it was necessary to institute the Judicial Courts, that are meant to exercise “judicial powers and to perform only judicial work” (Structure of the Federal Court System, 196). Since the country towards the end of the eighteenth century were under the Common Law rule, this step seemed sufficient to benefit the society. Before signing the Judiciary Act the founders wanted to go further than establishing a pyramid for the courts, they sent a draft for guidance. The few characteristics came from previous claims, one of the most uncomfortable features of the federal system were circuit riding in which the judges from the highest court to travel to different states to try cases. The circuit riding was basically a mirror match of the English courts, similarly the circuit courts were the major trial courts within the Federal Court System. Another issued faced by the system was the dealing of the single judge in the district courts. Through the time being the District Courts were “under limited jurisdiction over revenue, admiralty, and minor crimes” (Surrency, 7). Lastly, the distinction of between the Circuit Court and the Appellate Court, they both contained the same limited jurisdiction and could hear cases through writ of
Thomas Morton came to the New England in the year 1622. Morton was educated for the law at Oxford. Upon his arrival to Plymouth people had already heard he came with shady past. He had come by his inheritance from which he was “plaintiff, lawyer, and beneficiary” (McWilliams pg 5).
... The Opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts.” In The William and Mary Quarterly 65, no. 3. Virginia: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2008.
The courts have the function of giving the public a chance to present themselves whether to prosecute or defend themselves if any disputes against them rise. It is known to everyone that a court is a place where disputes can be settled while using the right and proper procedures. In the Criminal court is the luxury of going through a tedious process of breaking a law. Once you have been arrested and have to go to court because of the arrest, you now have a criminal case appointed against you. The court is also the place where a just, fair and unbiased trial can be heard so that it would not cause any disadvantage to either of the party involved in the dispute. The parties are given a chance to represent themselves or to choose to have a legal representative, which is mostly preferred by many.