Pfeifer V. Johnson Case

In the novel A Lesson Before Dying, written by Ernest J. Gaines in 1993, Grant Higgins struggles with the idea of criminal justice in the south during the 1940s. During this time in Bayonne, LA African Americans did not receive the same justice as whites. In this quotation one can see the discrimination, “Twelve white men say a black man must die, and another white man sets the date and time without consulting one black person. Justice?” (Gaines 157).

The topic I chose was actually breaking news last evening. On Tuesday night in Missouri, the Supreme Court halted a scheduled execution, stating delay of the lethal injection until a lower court ruled on the issue. In 1994, Ernest Lee Johnson was sentenced to death for killing three people with a claw hammer Attorney’s for Johnson asked the Supreme Court to stay the execution due to a surgery Johnson had in 2008 to remove a brain tumor. The attorneys wrote, part of the tumor in Johnson’s head could not be removed and he is missing between 15 and 20 percent of his brain. Citing a doctor’s medical expert opinion, he believes Johnson could suffer seizures due to the lethal injection.

In the dissent the justices said, “that all of these acts were committed by defendants with the intent upon their part to utterly disregard the above-mentioned order of this court and to prevent the court from hearing Johnson's appeal.” The men actions proved contrary to their non-guilty pleas. For example: on the night of Johnson’s lynching, Gibson was sole officer in the jail who was him, and when confronted by the mob, he handed over his keys. Shipp and the others knew that the Johnson life was in danger and failed to protect him, violating their duty in protecting him. He had access to a militia not far from the jail, but did not contact them and even more failed to notify the local police.

Relationships among races have evolved within the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The majority of race-related conflicts were negative. Some of the trials that took place throughout this time period were the Scottsboro Trials, the Emmett Till Murder Trial, Loving v. Virginia, the Trial of Peter Liang, and the Johnson v. California trial. In the book, To Kill a Mockingbird, there was a fictional trial that dealt with the relationship between a black man and white woman. Racial relations does not only deal with African-Americans and whites but other races including Asians, South Africans, etc.

This is Justice Harlan saying that because white people asserted themselves as dominant, and would no doubt continue to force their dominance upon the other races. Which, would in turn mean that this racial segregation would be effecting the black people and making them feel less than human. This feelings were echoed by all the justices present for Brown v. Board of Education. “The justices felt that even if the facilities were physically equal, separating children based solely on race, would create a feeling of inferiority and would perpetuate the ideals of white people back before slave were freed. (Summary of decision)”

Some portion of this was unexpected: the grim and generally plugged 1893 torment consuming of Henry Smith before a get together of thousands at Paris excited the newborn child against lynching development energetically. In a more positive vein, Texas local Jessie Daniel Ames of Georgetown established and filled in as leader of the Relationship of Southern Ladies for the Anticipation of Lynching, the best hostile to lynching bunch in the nation. The lawmaking body passed a hostile to lynching law in 1897, governors got out the Texas Volunteer Monitor to help safeguard detainees on various events, and nearby officers some of the time made a huge effort to ensure their

When the main character, Grant, finds out that another African-American man named Jefferson will be executed, he is in shock. This shock results from the fact that the execution date, time, and location were all decided by the sheriff, and the family wasn 't consulted even once. He thinks to himself: “Twelve white men say a black man must die, and another white man sets the date and time without consulting another black person. Justice?” (129)

Ever since President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial there has been controversy concerning the final vote that sealed the decision. Johnson had taken the office as president after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865. However Johnson, who was a Democrat, immediately clashed with the Grand Old Party because it had been dominated by Radical Republicans, specifically Thaddeus Stevens and Charles Sumner. Many bills were passed by the Republican Congress, but Johnson would veto them.

Dear Members of the Jury, I am writing you this letter to tell to you that Tom Robinson should be proven not guilty. This case would have never happened if the truth would have been told and it wasn’t a case between black and white. There are many ways that Robinson is not guilty. One of these reasons that Tom Robinson is not guilty is that if you listened to the Sheriff 's testimony he stumbled frequently and when he said something and then Atticus would say something different he would agree with Atticus. Tom Robinson is a very polite man with great manners, which you could take into consideration that he wouldn’t dare hurt this woman in this kind of manner.

In the end, Mitchell ended up with three white lawyers to defend the suspects: George Wise, Henry Flournoy, and Alexander Guigon. Finding three white lawyers to defend a group of African Americans had to be difficult enough, but in an even more shocking revelation, two of the lawyers, Wise and Flournoy, had once fought for the Confederate army. These men were once willing to risk their lives in order to enslave African Americans; now, they are going to defend them in court in order to save them from hanging. The African American community reached out to the suspects in a big way. Mitchell was constantly receiving money from various African American individuals and organizations in order to fund the lawyers for the upcoming trial.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) was a Supreme court case deciding whether or not flag burning is supported by “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson is caught burning the American flag in Dallas, Texas in 1989 to protest Ronald Reagan`s policies. When Johnson had burned the flag during the protest the state of Texas arrested him for desecrating a venerated object. Although Johnson did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone witnesses and spectators claimed to be seriously offended by seeing Johnson burn the flag. Most of the people in the courtroom were sided with Gregory Johnson supporting the fact that flag burning is considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment.

THE INTRODUCTION Good morning, my name is Brooke Athman, and it is my pleasure to represent the State of Maycomb and serve as the prosecutor in this very unique case of injustice. Ladies and gentlemen, on August 26, 1936, the jury of the Robinson v. Ewell case, committed the crime of dereliction of duty. The jury in that particular case is being put on trial based on their bias and racist verdict. After hearing all the evidence given, and at the conclusion of this case, we are assured that you will come to a verdict of guilty on these charges.

Tom, the mixed sheriff’s son in Chestnutt’s, is jailed for accusations of murdering a white man. Outraged by the death of their friend, the townspeople of Branson wanted to see Tom lynched for the murder. “The crowd decided to lynch the Negro. . . .They had some vague notions of the majesty of the law and the rights of the citizen, but in the passion of the moment these sunk into oblivion; a what man had been killed by a Negro.” ( Chestnutt 3).

In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.

Tom Robinson probably new already that he was going to lose the trial because most people would believe a white folk then a black person. Most people that were black and were accused of rape or murder were almost always going to be lynched.