The case Foster v. Chatman is a very difficult and unpleasant case. The case highlights the embarrassing and disgraceful episodes of the United States’ history. Racism, discrimination and prejudice have occurred, since the inception of the country. The United States’ pledge of allegiance reads, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
This statement is a very strong declaration, when it is often said, it can lose its sticking meaning, however this pledge can be deceptive. Three words that stand out greatly in this pledge is justice for all. Does justice happen for all in this developed country? Has
…show more content…
The most interesting fact of all this is that the most liberal justices are all women, and I do not believe that this is merely a coincidence. All of the conservative justices are men and the moderate justices are all men as well. By being informed of this information we can in some degree argue and assume what the holding of the court will be, regarding this case. Also, the holding of this case will definitely have some affect on other similar cases and perhaps could also cause more investigations over other cases. By reading the transcript of the argument of this case, in the end of the argument, they were focusing on the black jurors, so, I believe the decision of the court can go both ways. Thus, they can either side for the petitioner or the respondent. All-inclusive, if the court finds that
Foster was denied a fair trial or a proper, fair jury then they might side with Foster, the petitioner. However, if they conclude that there was no injury for Foster, or that the jury selection was not unusual, bias or not breaking any laws then they could side ultimately with
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
Though in Grutter v. Bollinger we deal with the 14th amendment of the Equal Protection Clause and racial classifications too, the way race is used is slightly differs. In this particular case, the court had to decide whether the use of race at the Univeristy of Michigan Law School during the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Barbara Grutter, a Caucasian applicant, applied to the University of Michigan in 1996 with a 3.8 GPA and a score of 161 on her LSAT. Grutter was placed on the waitlist, but was subsequently denied admission to the school. Grutter claims that she was only denied because of her race, as the University uses race as a factor in the admission process.
Brady v. United States 397 U.S. 742 (1970) Intro: The Petitioner plead guilty to kidnapping after his co-defendant decided to confess and testify against him. Whether Brady’s (the petitioner) plea was made voluntarily was the issue. Relevant Law: “Just because a defendant discovers that the State would have had a weaker case or that they were not going to impose the maximum punishment does not mean that the defendant is allowed by law to disown his statements made in open court.” Facts: The Petitioner, in 1959, was charged with kidnapping.
Case Name: Andrea v Clarence To determine if the arrest of Clarence was lawful, one must first determine if the police officers were trespassing at the time of the arrest. Did the police officers trespass on another ’s land in order to arrest Clarence? The police officers would be found to have trespassed if it was established that; • The action was direct and intentional • The police officers entered and/or remained on another’s land • The police officers were present on the land without consent or lawful justification
Justice Charles Lawrence of Illinois Supreme Court made an appalling statement in the case Bradwell v. Illinois back in 1873. "God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make, apply, and execute the laws, was regarded as an almost axiomatic truth," Lawrence said (Lupton). At that time, other justices also had the same thought; as a result, Bradwell could not be allowed to be an attorney only because she was a married woman. However, in 1981, according to "Sandra Day O'Connor," O'Connor became the first women to be on the United States Supreme Court in 191 years of history of the court. Her becoming a justice in the court gave other women to have a chance to proceed in male-dominant fields, and
In R v. Frieson, Judge Ouellette referred to 5 cases and 2 statutes outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2 statutes from the Constitution Act, and 12 statues from the Criminal Code. The issue with this particular case laid in the fact that Frieson believed the imposition of a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for this offence constituted as cruel and unusual punishment; the defendant was not aware of Mr. Froese’s depression when he sold him both firearms. Despite only having a license to sell non-prohibited firearm ammunition at the time, Friesen cooperated with investigators and was honest about continuing to sell firearms from his store despite not having a license, even after Mr. Froese’s death. Judge Oulette was
Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) The Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) case involved the marriage of same sex couples. Groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of them refusing to recognize legal same sex marriages. Plaintiffs argued that the states’ statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Business Law Case Study Essay: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S (2014) Facts: The Green family runs and owns Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., a national arts and skills chain that has over 500 stores and they have over 13,000 employees. Other facts of the case are that the Green family has been able to organize the business around the values of the Christian faith and has explicitly expressed the desire to run the company as told by Biblical principles, one of which is the belief that the utilization of contraception is wicked. Also, the facts show that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), occupation -founded group health care plans must offer certain sorts of preventative care, for example, FDA-accepted contraceptive approaches.
Between the January 2002 and January 2004 the defendant, Collins, made a series of telephone calls and voice recordings on an answering machine to members of his office. Within these telephone calls, and answering machine recordings the defendant used a number of pejorative racist phrases, such as; “wogs”, “pakis”, “black bastards” and “niggers”. The terms were not heard by members of ethnic minorities, but some of those who received the calls and heard the messages described themselves as “shocked”, “alarmed” or “depressed” by the defendants language. Following this, a formal complaint was made, charges were pressed by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defendant was tried for sending, by means of a public telecommunications system,
Chapter 3 Article 3: Racial Bias Among Jurors at Heart of Supreme Court Case How does the Supreme Court work and what is it made up of? These questions asked every day by some who do not have a full understanding of how the United States court system works. According to chapter three of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury the United Sates Supreme Court is the last and final word (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 59). Meaning that if the Supreme Court reaches a ruling it is set in stone and no other judicial or political person or group can overturn the decision (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 59). Nowhere in the article was it stated
The Pledge of Alliances ends with ¨ liberty and Justice for all”. The Key word in that phrase is justice. Many Individuals all around the world desire justice. Today there are movements that try to achieve justice, such like the Black Lives matter. In human nature, the need for justice is seen is in real life and stories.
My thought on this case is that Justice Scalia since he is a conservative than he might thought that if a School is only for men than it should stay like that. Lastly one of the many assents if Justice Scalia is the case of Basic Law Maryland v. Craig where allow children that was a victim of sexual abuse to testify at trial by closed-circuit television. This case was decided in the year of 1990. (Liptak). Scalia sometimes was a person that was unpredictable, because even though he was a conservative he sometimes was a Liberal.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys routinely use peremptory challenges to eliminate frim juries’ individuals who although they express no obvious bias, are thought to be capable of swaying the jury in an undesirable direction. The prosecution and the defense are also protected by the Equal Protection Clause
Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system.
Tammy V noticed Richard put something in his pants and took him to officer Cooker to have him check. Richard turned over a bandanna that was not his that he had taken from the staff mail room were he was doing work on an in house detention for cutting class on 9.20.16. I confirmed for officer Cooker that it did not belong to Richard even after Richard told the officer that it was not his and he took it for his collection at home. It was at this point that officer Cooker sighted Richard for stolen property and issued a citation.