The Case Of Booth Vs. The State Of Maryland

McCulloch vs Maryland Summary In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland.

Maryland, Brady and his partner, Boblit, were found guilty of murder in the first degree and were sentenced to death. Upon appeal, their convictions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. 220 Md. 454, 154 A.2d 434 ( Brady v. Maryland, 1963).

Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.

Recently, state-issued photo ID has been required in order vote since the law passed in the Texas legislature. This law has caused controversy as it brings up the question over the state’s power in the regulation of elections. “While pending review within the judicial system, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively ended all pending litigation. As a result, voters are now required to present an approved form of photo identification in order to vote in all Texas Elections” (votetexas.gov). The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the Shelby County v. Holder case.

According to the Tenth Amendment of the constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. There have been moments in history where Congress has implemented laws that states felt were unconstitutional. The Constitution gave states the ability to counter the federal government’s power through the Judiciary branch of government, when they feel a law is unconstitutional. The Founders of our nation gave Congress enumerated powers to pass legislation that needs to be abided by all states and citizens. At times Congress will overstep its powers by enacting laws that are unconstitutional and the states have the right to challenge those powers.

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

Court Cases Response Paper The main idea of the first essay, dealing with the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, is that the U.S. Constitution must be read with a loose interpretation because if the Constitution contained “an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind” (66). The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the reoccurring issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the state of Maryland attempted to place a tax on the Second Bank of the United States and it was being determined if Congress could indeed create said bank. Maryland believed that under a strict interpretation of the Constitution it had the right to tax the bank.

Ironically that's all they argued, they didn’t bother to use the 8th amendment as a defense. The benefits of being able to nullify a verdict as a jury is being able to provide a different socio-economic perspective. A judge works with crime everyday, most likely not living in the ghetto where some jurors may live. Juror’s with different perspectives of a crime can cause more linancy and sympathy towards a defendant.

Slide 2: Introduction of Victim Impact statement policy: Victim impact statements involves the victim expressing to the court how the crime affected them. The victim impact statement is a written statement which is verbally communicated in the court room. It is optional the victim is not under any obligation to produce a Victim impact statement. Primary victims are not the only ones who can provide statements, friends or family can act on behalf of them. Victim Impact Statements involve explaining how the crime physically impacted on the victim, any injuries that have come from the crime, long term and short term injuries.

We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed

The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.

On appeal, the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the victim impact statement serves an important interest by informing the sentence of the full measure of harm caused by the crime. Booth again appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the lower court's sentencing, but not the conviction, was vacated and remanded back for further proceedings. In presenting arguments before the Supreme Court, the chief attorney for Booth argued that when making a decision about the death penalty, juries should only consider two criteria: the defendant's background and the circumstances of the

State of Georgia V. Marcus Dwayne Dixon (2003) Marcus Dixon was a highly recruited high school football player. His life suddenly took a tragic turn when he was falsely convicted of raping a 15 year old girl. The elements around his false conviction could have been avoided with some reform to the criminal justice courts system. Dixon initially had many charges against him but were narrowed down to statutory rape and aggravated child molestation. There was much racial disparity surrounding the jury on Dixon’s case, in that the county that Dixon committed his “crime” was a predominantly white population.

In the case of the United States v. John Bass, the defendant John Bass was charged with the international killings with a firearm of two individuals. The defendant John Bass alleged that the government was seeking the death penalty against him because of his race. Mr. Bass brought forth evidence from a national statistic showing that African Americans were charged with a death eligible offenses more than twice as often as whites. Due to this evidence the Sixth Circuit Court granted Mr. Bass a motion for discovery regarding the government 's capital charging practices. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit Courts decision to grant the defendant John Bass a discovery motion based on selective prosecution.

The court had a horrible way of deciding who was guilty or innocent and this killed