A Case Summary Of Howes V. Fields

Jake Ruksakiati V-220 HW 3 Case one: Graham v. Connor (1989) Case two: Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) Graham v. Connor: Facts: Graham is a diabetic and asked one of his friends to take him to a convenience store so he could purchase juice to counteract an insulin reaction he had been experiencing. While in the store Graham noticed that the line to check out was extremely long and decided to leave the store. Graham left the store extremely fast, raising suspicion about his activity to police officer Connor.

Case 442 U.S. 707 Fare v. Michael C. February 27, 1979 through June 20, 1979. This case involves Michael C., a sixteen year old juvenile, brought to the police station in California by Van Nuys police on a murder investigation. The juvenile was read his Miranda prophylactic protection rights before being questioned; he requested to speak to his probation officer but was denied. Michael agreed to speak with the officers and also waived his rights to counsel. While doing this, he brought forward incriminating statements against him that in return, the juvenile landed himself in court on a murder trial.

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

The purple heart award is one of the most well-known military awards. The purple heart is awarded to someone serving in the United States Military who has been injured or killed by an enemy when at war. This award is one of the highest honors that you can receive in the military and it means a lot to the individuals and families who have received it. The court case United States v. Fields is crucial in holding up the value of the purple heart. Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety.

Earl Warren Many chief justices have worked on popular cases over the years. In particular I am going to be talking about Earl Warren; his early life, he was a past chief justice, why he chose what he did and the three major cases he worked on throughout his life. All of these affected our lives in one way or another. The three cases Earl Warren worked on were Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, and Benton v. Maryland.

Arizona, Miranda was the plaintiff. The arguments for him were that at the time he was arrested and interrogated, he was not notified that he has the right to remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law, and that he had the right to have an attorney present and he would be appointed one if he could not afford one. Essentially, the plaintiff wanted to make sure everyone will always be informed of his or her Fifth Amendment rights. The defendant in this case, the state of Arizona, argued that Miranda still willingly offered his confession to the police, fully aware of his rights due to prior criminal issues he had

The Dred Scott v. Sandford case had the greatest impact on Race Relations in America because it created a legitimate definition of the citizenship. Scott, a former slave, stated that because of his occupancy in a free state, he is a free man. The other side argued that Scott was still a slave and according to the fifth amendment, no person (master) can be deprived of their property. The initial impact of the case was in favor of the slave owner but this decision was overturned by the adoption of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment. The thirteenth amendment ended slavery and the fourteenth amendment granted citizenship to everyone born or naturalized in the United States included former slaves who had been freed after the Civil War.

Arizona ruling was the correct one constitutionally. Fundamental rights that must be upheld include the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on self-incrimination. The police shouldn't be able to coerce suspects into giving up their rights or deceive them into doing so in order to get confessions. Suspects are given Miranda warnings so they are aware of their rights and can decide for themselves whether or not to speak with the police. Therefore the decision was constitutionally correct as Miranda did not expressly request legal representation, so his constitutional rights were not infringed, the Supreme Court of Arizona said upon

If a person choses to waive their rights, they will not have the legal consultation of an attorney to help guide them through the interrogation process. With the flood of emotions that the suspect may be feeling, there are

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote this : “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” The court set aside his conviction. After a second trial, Miranda 's confession from the previous trial were thrown out. However he was convicted again and was sentenced up to thirty years in federal prison. Once he was released on probation, a violent fight broke out at a local Phoenix, Arizona bar which left a lethal knife wound which killed him.

The book describes the Miranda Rights, which are the legal rights that a person under arrest must be informed before they are interrogated by police. If the arresting officer doesn’t inform an arrested person of his Miranda Rights, that person may walk free from any chargers. The book also talks about double jeopardy, double jeopardy is the right that prohibits a person from been tried twice for the same crime. In other words if a person is found innocent and sometime later new evidence surface that can incriminate him with the crime that he is “innocent” he cannot be charged for that same crime. The book also mentions self-incrimination, which is the right that no citizen will have to be a witness against himself.

The Miranda Rights have always been a controversial subject in or out of court. Some people argue Miranda rights ensure justice and preserve liberty while others argue it does the complete opposite. Miranda Right, also referred to as Miranda Warning, has been around for 50 years and it is something that has definitely been beneficial to many law enforcement cases. Without these rights we would still be in the same position as Mr. Miranda and would be struggling to achieve justice and liberty. It is essential to understand the impact these rights bring in order to understand why it is such important in court.

The prisoner’s rights movement is mostly recognized for the events that occurred through the 1960s until the 1980s but it is important to review cases beforehand that led up to the movement itself. In the case of Pervear v. Massachusetts of 1866 a case was fought through the Supreme Court. The court ruled that prisoners should have no constitutional rights, which concluded the Eighth Amendment did not apply to them. The Eighth Amendment states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (US Const. Amend XIII).

Polly Ann Myers Polly Ann Myers and Autherine Lucy were trying to get admission to the University of Alabama. The university didn’t allow them to attend classes at the university. This was a violation to the Fourteenth Amendment. The situation with Polly and Autherine went to court. The case was called the Lucy v. Adams case.

R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 v. Williams was a criminal case, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, in which the accused appealed the decision of; Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Facts: Victor Daniel Williams is an aboriginal man who pleaded not guilty but was charged via trial by judge and jury for the robbery of a pizza parlour in October, 1993. in Victoria BC. His defence was that another aboriginal had committed the crime. Williams challenged the jury on the basis of s.638 of the criminal code “an accused is entitled to any number of challenges on the ground that.. a juror is not indifferent between the Queen and the accused” as they had established significant amounts of prejudice against aboriginals, which was dismissed in the Court Of Appeal, leading to his conviction.