Gengal V Hogan Summary

Case Citation: DICKENS BY DICKENS v. JOHNSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. NO. CIV-2-86-91. 1.Facts:

In the court case, Gil vs Whitford, the major concerns of this particular case was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, is to favor one party or class by manipulating the boundaries of those involved in the electoral constituent. This case first arose in the year 2011; in Wisconsin. In the state of Wisconsin, two republicans were elected in the states assembly and senate. Soon after that, the redirecting plan began to take place.

Decision: Three court cases revered, and one court case affirmed. The court reviewed the writ dealing with the Fifth Amendment and suspects rights during interrogation. In order for a confession to be admissible in court a suspect must be advised of their constitutional rights. Comments: Miranda v. Arizona is considered to be a landmark court case. Its final decision came down to a 5-4 majority vote in favor of the suspects.

This testimony was to shed light on illegal gambling actions, and other criminal offenses, which were occurring in the county (Malloy v. Hogan, 1964). As he was being questioned before the court, Malloy refused to answer questions, which concerned the activities occurring around him at the time of his arrest, due to the fact that answering said questions would be incriminating himself. The Superior Court held Malloy in contempt, and ordered that he be held in jail until such a time as he was prepared to answer the questions. Malloy sought relief by filing a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court, and his petition was denied by that court. Malloy then appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors.

The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing

According to a portion of the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the accused has the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. Otherwise meaning, any and all witnesses must be present for the trial to be considered fair and just. In the Supreme Court Case of Bryant v. Michigan, Bryant committed a crime, with the only witness being Anthony Covington. Bryant uses the Sixth Amendment as an aid in his trial.

Arizona case is an important case that deals with Miranda given a confession without being stated his rights to him in a way that he could understand them. Miranda was one of many accused individuals that gave a statement without having his rights being read to him. The U.S. Supreme Court set aside Miranda?s confession because it was inquired through an improper interrogation. Arizona retried Miranda, and the confession was not listed as evidence against him, but his wife gave a statement only after he sued for the custody of his daughter. Then he was sentenced to twenty to thirty years in prison.

As the trial came to a close end the jury announced that Clarence Earl Gideon was guilty, and was convicted five years in prison. While being in jail Gideon filed a petition before the Florida Supreme Court declaring that the State of Florida had proclaimed an unfair case trial by denying him his Sixth Amendment the Right to the Assistance of Counsel. The petition sent to the Supreme Court was denied. Next, Gideon did not fall back; he appealed his case to the U.S Supreme Court claiming that putting him on trial without a lawyer was unfair due to the fact that it denied him due process of law against the 14th Amendment. The U.S Supreme Court came to a conclusion to review Gideon’s case, which

The Supreme Court did not share Lincoln’s opinion. Especially, the Chief Justice Roger Taney who, in his role as the federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. He did so after his recommendation for a trial of Merryman in order to determine if there were any legitimate reasons for his arrest met if refusal form Merryman captors. In the end, The President ignored Taney ruling, and Congress never contested Lincoln’s Habeas Corpus decision. Lincoln also met with strong resistance form the general public in regards to his executive order.

He took the case all the way to Supreme Court but lost. He was released after the end of World War II, but the conviction on his record was not overturned until

According to the Bill of Rights Institute the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right to not testify at trail and this stops the prosecutor, the judge and even the defendant’s lawyer can’t force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. The Fifth Amendment states that no one maybe deprived of life, liberty or property without “due process of law” and there is two types of due process which are procedural which is fairness and substantive. According to the Fifth Amendment it protects a criminal defendant from double jeopardy and the reason’s are that it’s to prevent the government from using it’s superior resources so it would wear down and convict an innocent person. It also protects individuals from the financial,

SLO: 1 Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights Civil Liberties are individual rights that are acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Civil Liberties place restraints on what the government can and can’t do. These individual rights cannot be taken away by law. These rights can be found in the Bill of Rights. 2

Wainwright illustrated the importance of personal rights guaranteed by the constitution. This case began when Clarence Gideon was denied a court appointed lawyer to represent him in a petty crime case. Gideon, unable to afford his own lawyer, was unable to adequately defend himself and consequently was convicted. However, he was undeterred. Gideon then wrote a letter to the Supreme Court to overturn this conviction with the 6th Amendment as his evidence of the court’s misconduct.

1. First and foremost, in regards to the case of Brady v. Maryland (1963), prosecuting attorneys withheld information from the courts in the conviction of Brady and Boblit for first degree murder. Boblit had written a confession before the trial stating he had committed the murder on his own, but due to the prosecution withholding exculpatory evidence, Brady was also convicted of the same murder. Brady petitioned the courts and the Supreme Court Ruled in favor of Brady, stating his rights of “due process” had been violated by the state of Maryland. It is from this case that a defendant may request Brady disclosure.

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.