Palko V. Connecticut Supreme Court Case Study

Facts: Rudy Stanko was driving on the Montana State Highway 200 when he was pulled over by Officer Kenneth Breidenbach, a member of the Montana Highway Patrol. Stanko had been driving his vehicle at a steady 85 miles per hour at a location that was “narrow, had no shoulders, and was broken up by an occasional frost heave.” This location also included curves and hills which obscured vision of the roadway head. The actual roadway held no other drivers at this time during the day. Stanko had been driving his new 1996 Chevrolet Camaro, with brakes, tires, and a steering wheel that were all in perfect operating conditions.

Korematsu v. United States After the United States entered World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. Fred Korematsu was a natural born citizen to Japanese immigrant parents. Korematsu refused to obey the curfew and was charged and convicted of violating order 9066. He appealed this conviction and the Supreme Court took his case.

The American legal system hears many cases relating to liability, but surprisingly, most of these cases concern the prosecutors within their own legal system. In the Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson, a district attorney’s office denied liability for the extreme misconduct of its prosecutors. The Supreme Court decided that the D.A. office was not liable for the actions of their prosecutors because they did not have a pattern of Brady violations. Contrary to the decision in Connick v. Thompson, the D.A. office should have been held liable for the misconduct of its prosecutors. Brady violations appeared throughout the case, other cases of Brady violations in that D.A. office, and the office’s blatant neglect to properly train its prosecutors.

Korematsu v. United States was a controversial landmark decision ruling by the United States Supreme court. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American living in California, he was ordered to refuse to leave his city after the Japanese internment camp. After the World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued the Executive Order 9066 and  Congressional decree gave the military power to exclude citizens of Japanese descent from areas deemed critical to national defense and may be vulnerable to espionage. On May 3, 1942, Fred Korematsu stayed in California and violated the US Army Civilian Executive Order No. 34. This supreme court case has an importance of interpreting the constitution and the different perspective of interpreting the constitution based on a person’s own political background and beliefs.

An English yacht with a group of four men; Tom Dudley, Edwin Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and Richard Parker sails from Southhampton to Sydney, Australia on May 19th, 1884. Unfortunately, after 48 days (July 5th, 1884) on the sea, the yacht sank about 1600 miles off the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa. The four men were able to get on an open lifeboat, but had no supply of fresh water and had only two 1 pound cans of turnip. The four desperately tried to survive with all there were available, but after 17 days of being lost in the middle of the sea, they reached their breaking points. On the 18th day, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks discussed the possibility of sacrificing one person for the rest of the group, and they all had the same person in mind; Richard Parker.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning.

George Milton is tried for the death of Lennie Small on one count of murder and two counts of manslaughter. His plea is not guilty. I believe the evidence presented by both the defense team and the prosecutors proved George Milton to be guilty of manslaughter. After a lengthy conversation in the jurors room, I along with the jury reached the verdict that George Milton is in fact guilty of manslaughter. I believe George Milton knowingly cause the death of a man, Lennie Small, while enduring extreme fear.

Thurman V Torrington is about a wife whom has suffered from many years of abuse and harassments from her husband. Throughout the many years of this abuse Mrs. Thurman has called out for help in which she never received. Even though her husband was arrest once it never ended until it was too late.   What is Abuse? It is the hurting of one mentally, physically, emotionally, and verbally.

Joseph Kindler was convicted of murder in Pennsylvania in 1982. After robbing a music store and the police caught his accomplice who ratted him out, Kindler was seeking revenge. He went and found his former accomplice and beat him 20 times with a baseball bat and shocked him 5 times with an electric rod, then took him to a bridge, tied a cinder block to his neck and threw him into the river. The state jury's recommendation was the death penalty and Kindler was going to appeal but he escaped to Canada so the court dismissed his post verdict motions. When Canadian authorities captured him for burglary in Canada they were going to convict him but he was able to flee.

His attorney advised him to plea guilty to the lesser charge of second-degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty, but ultimately left the decision up to Alford. A great amount of evidence pointed

Before 1948 Julius A. Wolf had been arrested and tried for reasons not stated in the Supreme Court case, but the evidence that was used against Wolf was taken unlawfully, the police had no warrant for his arrest as well as no warrant to search his office. Wolf was able to get an appeal to be tried one more time. In 1948 the trial Wolf v Colorado Supreme Court had begun. It was a very controversial topic because the case was based on the violation of the Fourth Amendment right of protection from search and seizures.

Is the Search in R. v. Polesky Reasonable? On an episode of Law and Order, Mr. Polesky was tried for second degree murder based on the captivation of a murder weapon found under the mattress he sleeps on in Central Park. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that: “everyone has the right to be secured against unreasonable search or seizure”. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Schedule B, Constitution Act, 1982, s. 8 [Charter]

Arkansas. Charges were brought against Alex Blueford in January of 2011, for the murder of his girlfriend’s 20 month old son. However, Blueford had already been charged for the murder, resulting in a mistrial. Once Blueford was aware of the repeating charge, he argued that allowing a retrial would violate the “double-jeopardy” clause found in the fifth amendment. This case offered insight on a part of the fifth amendment that is extremely important to individuals.

The judge declares the “Murder in the first degree—premeditated homicide—is the most serious charge tried in our criminal courts. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake. If there is a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused … then you must declare him not guilty. If, however, there is no reasonable doubt, then he must be found guilty.

The court sentenced him to death by guillotine.