Case Study: Miller V. Alabama

3. Whether the trial court erred in imposing two enhanced sentences. For the reasons that follow, we answer

Miller V. Alabama The Facts One July 2003 night, Evan Miller a 14-year-old juvenile at the time; was together with a friend Colby Smith at Miller’s house (Oyez,n.d.). At the time, Miller was expecting a neighbor Cole Cannon to come by to ascertain a drug deal with Miller’s mother (Miller V. Alabama, 2012,p.1004).Miller and Smith then preceded to Cannon ’s trailer to smoke marijuana while playing drinking games (Miller V. Alabama, 2012,p.676, 689). Once Cannon lost consciousness, Miller took the opportunity to steal Cannon’s wallet; successful, he shared the $300 he obtained with Smith (Miller V. Alabama, 2012,p.676,689). Then Miller tried to cover his tracks by replacing Cannon’s wallet (now empty) back into his pocket; while doing so Cannon regained consciousness and seized Miller at the neck and throat (Miller V. Alabama, 2012,p.676,689).

Criminal Penalties Spring 2016 Final Critical Evaluation of Bordenkircher v. Hayes By: 1518 In Bordenkircher v. Hayes, a case that challenged the ability of prosecutors to threaten a defendant with additional and more severe charges if he refused to plead guilty, the Supreme Court held that there is no violation of the Due Process Clause when the defendant is re-indicted on more serious charges for which he is plainly subject to prosecution. The defendant in Bordenkircher, Mr. Hayes, had been charged with uttering a forged instrument in the amount of $88.30. If Mr. Hayes agreed to plead guilty the prosecutor agreed to recommend a five-year prison sentence and to forego charging Mr. Hayes under the Kentucky Habitual Criminal Act (“HCA”).

In a new 2012 case, Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that mandatory sentencing of minors convicted of homicide to

The articles written by Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer both contribute valid insight on how the Constitution should be interpreted. They, however, end up taking conflicting views on whether to adopt what is known as a living constitution or to bind the judiciary by the original meaning of the document. Throughout their works, the authors mention the importance of objectivity, judicial restraint and the historical context in which the Constitution was written under and whether or not it should apply to the United States today. Scalia argues in favor of the originalist approach, stating that he supports neither a strict nor a loose interpretation of the Constitution, but rather, a reasonable interpretation. Breyer sides with the cosequentialist ideals, claiming that active participation in collective power is paramount when it comes to evaluating the Constitution's place in American law.

In the 1970’s Gault’s case set precedent for two more cases, the cases of Mckeiver v. Pennsylvania, In Re: Burris. Also, the case of Goss v. Lopez. Both cases happen within four years. The case of Gault made the evaluation of the due process much more

oshua Haas October 6, 2014 Intro to Criminal Justice Miller Vs. Alabama On June 25, 2012 the Supreme Court had rule 5 to 4 that Miller was guilty to committing murder and was sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On that day in June the court had struck down all of the statues that was requires for a child under the age of 18 to be sentenced life in prison.

Powell v. Alabama is a landmark case that addressed the right to counsel for defendants in criminal cases. The case came from the conviction of nine African American kids who were accused of sexually assaulting two white women on a train in Alabama in 1931. The nine kids were tried and convicted in a rushed trial that barley lasted a few hours, in which they were not provided with a legal counsel and were subject to intimidation and threats from the prosecution and the people outside the courthouse. The case raised important questions about the rights of criminal defendants to due process, legal counsel, and equal protection under the law. The ruling in the Powell v. Alabama case established the principle that even criminals are

Rosenberg puts forth two views of how the Supreme Court's achieves the effects it does: the "Dynamic Court" and the "Constrained Court". The Dynamic Court view maintains that the United States Supreme Court is indeed capable of effecting widespread change. The Constrained Court view holds that unless certain constraints and conditions imposed upon the Court by the Constitution, the Congress, the public, and other factors are overcome, the Court is unable to accomplish significant change. Rosenberg supports his claims by analyzing specific court decisions, namely Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973). Rosenberg condenses three constraints he sees on judicial efficacy that are built into the American legal system: the limited nature of constitutional rights, the lack of judicial independence, and the judiciary’s limited enforcement powers (Rosenberg 2008, pg.

When one holds a prestigious position on the United States Supreme Court, they possess the opportunity to alternate the future of the country. However, that impulse should not be entertained in the majority of instances, as with the Dred Scott Case of 1857. Although that conflict should have dissolved after the subject dissolved, Chief Justice Roger Taney allegedly overextended his reach to determine the legality of another issue that had troubled the United States. In addition, the decision decided on the case itself negates the framework of the U.S. Constitution by infringing on an individual’s rights, regardless of who they might be. At the time of the Dred Scott Decision, the United States had become deadlocked over the controversy

Shelby County V. Holder: A critical analysis Introduction Along the time human beings have been able to evolve and modify its surroundings despite the environmental challenges. As a result, society has been creating laws in order to regulate different aspects of life. Shelby County V. Holder has a variety of components that made this case relevant.

The court showed that the utilization of an offender’s juvenile criminal record allowed for the stigma of criminal behavior to follow the person into adulthood. The legal issues before the Supreme Court of Michigan were; what are the terms that a sentencing judge can rightfully use the juvenile records of a convicted offender during the sentencing process (People v. Smith, 437 Mich. 293

“Because of the evolving nature of constitutional law, the potential ramifications of O’Connor’s opinion were great. Federal judges in habeas cases were often in the position to rule on questions for which there was not yet a directly controlling Supreme Court precedent (Bikupic, 2005). Shortly after the Teague case Justice O’Connor had to vote in another habeas case Penny v. Lynaugh in this case O’Connor submitted the deciding vote and also wrote the opinion that seemed to disembowel

The U.S. legal system has numerous pros and cons discovered throughout history and the ambiguous system is a glorious quality. The American public has the right to decided whether the legal system’s benefits outweigh the

The written story of how Clarence Earl Gideon, a poor Florida man, went from a convicted criminal to ultimately redefining legal history is astounding. The Supreme Court commonly dismisses more cases than it accepts and the fact that a handwritten petition from a prison inmate was accepted shows that even the seemingly most insignificant person can make a difference in our society. The book’s literature is highly legalistic but constantly provides a detailed account of how the judicial system is constructed. Coming from a regular college student standpoint with no previous formal law education, this makes the underlying concept easier to grasp. The story’s setting during the time of the Gideon case, showed how the legal system was constructed towards the growing concept of a defendant’s rights.