Gerald Gault Case Brief

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, appellant, Robert Eugene Caldwell (“Caldwell”), was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit second-degree burglary. The jury, however, acquitted Caldwell of seven other charges. For each of Caldwell’s conspiracy convictions, he received 15 years’ incarceration with all but five years suspended, and five years of supervised probation. On appeal, Caldwell presents three issues for our review, which we rephrase and reorder as follows: 1. Whether the circuit court erred in denying Caldwell’s motions for a mistrial.

Issue: Was the juvenile court’s waiver of jurisdiction valid? Was the statutory requirement of a “full investigation” been met? Rule: The Supreme Court decided there was not an adequate examination preceding the adolescent court waiver of

The Weeks v United States case was the Supreme Court basis in determining to incorporate the Fourth Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause and apply the exclusionary rule in state cases. In this essay, I am going to discuss the reason why the Supreme Court determine that the exclusionary rule should apply to the state police activity. Prior to the case of Weeks v United States, the state police activity “were not limited in their conduct by the Fourth Amendment” (Ingram p.81) and the exclusionary rule of Fourth Amendments illegal search and seizure only applies to federal law enforcement officers. Basically, it means that state law enforcement officials can illegally search and seized criminal activity evidence and court don’t prohibit the use of illegally obtained evidence in the trial court.

The arguments of the Scopes Trial, which is also known as the “Monkey Trial”, have been carried far past the year of 1925. When laws are challenged it shakes the town or city one is apart of. This was true for the U.S. as a whole. The Scopes Trial has never been forgotten, and its repercussions are evident. The trial demonstrated lawful challenges.

These special circumstances may include things such as illiteracy, ignorance, youth, or mental illness, the complexity of the charge against him, or the conduct of the prosecutor or judge at the trial. Because of true determination and the intolerance of injustice, Gideon filed a writ of certiorari, requesting the US Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of Betts v. Brady in regards to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the absence of representation at his trial meant that he had been denied a fair trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright made legal history, forever changing the interpretation of due process laid out in both the Sixth Amendment and the Fourteenth

The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated. Even though he was

He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and they affirmed that the Act does not violate any constitutionality challenged the defendant. Facts 1. The defendant committed to serve time for certain crimes and he was prison released in August 1996. 2.

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Issue (3): regardless of whether or not the individual actually committed the crime, when an individual cannot afford an attorney, if found guilty should individuals who crime was perceived as heinous be sentenced to death? Decision: The majority of the United States Supreme Court opinion reversed and remanded the court verdicts of the Alabama Supreme Court (7-2). The Supreme Court stated that due process and right to counsel of the Scottsboro boys had been violated during Alabama’s court case. Opinion: (Majority) the 7-2 majority opinion ultimately overturned the convictions of the nine Scottsboro boys.

The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

There were claims on the Manton case study that Dixon had prior history of engaging in sexual activity at his high school, which led Dixon to be suspended twice for the prior sexual acts. At the time of this incident, Dixon was 18 years old, and the “victim” was 15 (Manton, 2005). Following this factual information, Dixon at that time claimed that the sexual act was consensual and accused the girl of fabricating the story because of fear of her parents finding out and punishing her for sleeping with a black man (Manton, 2005). Several charges were suggested for Dixon which included: statutory rape, aggravated child molestation, rape, sexual battery, false imprisonment, and aggravated assist (Manton, 2005). Dixon was then acquitted of a majority of the charges and found Dixon guilty of statutory rape and aggravated child molestation (Manton,

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.

There he filed for suit agains the Secretary of the Florida Division of Corrections, who at the time was H. G. Cochran. Cochran retired and was replace by Louie Lee Wainright before the case was heard by the Supreme Court. Having studied in the prison library, Gideon argued in his appeal that he was denied council, and therefore his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, were violated. Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment constitutional requirement that indigent defendants be appointed counsel

And was Kent’s 14th Amendment right under the due process clause. Kent

The trial of the Scottsboro boys was a trial that was the cause of two white women accusing nine black men of raping them. Their appeals, retrials, and legal proceedings attracted the attention of the nation and produced to Supreme Court rulings in their favor. The Scottsboro boys trial demonstrates that nonconformity to unjust practices can lead to justice for all people because their trial triggered The Supreme Court ruling that had a major impact on the American system of laws for the right to adequate counsel, the ruling for the right to not be excluded from a jury based on race, and still has a continuing effect in our own time which affirms the principle of equal protection under the law. Their case not only saved them from the death sentence but also started up debate about equal protection under the law such as in the first Supreme Court ruling.