Case Woods V. Kansas

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

MILLERSBURG — After serving eight months in prison for going into and stealing money from a Washington Township home last September, a former Wooster man last week was granted early release.

On January, 23 1906 a white woman named Nevada Taylor was dropped off the bus station in Chattanooga, Tennessee at 6:30 p.m. only two and half blocks from her home. Little did she know she was being followed? A man grabbed her by the neck and drug her ten feet before throwing her over a fence. She screamed and struggled as he put a leather strap around her neck and threatened to cut her throat. Taylor accounts waking up about ten minutes later in torn and dirty clothes covered in bruises. Her doctor later confirmed she had been raped. She claimed to have never of saw the face of the attacker but he had a soft voice of a black man. During this time of prejudice, segregation and hatred towards Negros was just a way of life for the

A 27year old African American man pled guilty and was convicted on five counts of common law burglary. He was sentenced to death in accordance with Alabama state law. The prosecution presented the eyewitness accounts of the events and the petitioner did not testify. The defendant did not testify on his behalf, nor did counsel present his case. The judge accepted the guilty plea without any confirmation from the defendant concerning his voluntariness of his guilty plea or its consequences.

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

Sweeney, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court. Plaintiffs Levi Pettit and Parker Rice, members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity at the University of Oklahoma, were expelled from the university for “leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile education environment for others” (President Boren’s Letter). The incident occurred on March 7th, 2015, on a private bus hired by the fraternity on which men from the SAE fraternity and their dates were riding back from a national celebration of their Founder’s Day.

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

The Indiana Supreme Court sided with Edwards, and overturned the trial court’s decision. In 2008, the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court (Oyez, 2017). Legal History • Dusky v. United States (1960) – The Court affirmed a defendant’s right to a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. • Faretta v. California (1975) – The Court held that a defendant need only be "literate, competent, and understanding" to represent himself in court. • Godinez v. Moran (1993) – The Court ruled that if a defendant is competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead

In the case of Kyllo v. United States, I believe that the federal government did not exceed boundaries set by the Fourth Amendment. Conducting basic surveillance of the home with a basic thermal imager, Kyllo’s illegal activities were inferred using common patterns associated with indoor marijuana growth, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. Although agents used extrasensory technology to view the normally invisible heat radiating from the home, their actions did not infringe upon Kyllo’s rights. All of the information used in obtaining the search warrant was gained from the exterior of the house, not through an unconstitutional search. However unorthodox the methods may have been, they did not constitute a violation.

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

The Supreme Court ruled the case U.S. v. Park guilty of unsanitary conditions which violated the FDAC (Jennings, 2010). According to Open Jurist (n.d.), however, the Court of Appeals found Park not guilty, based on the case the U.S. v. Dotterweich. The reasoning behind the Court of Appeals concludes that although Park was the President and CEO of ACME Markets, Inc., he did not take part directly of the conditions from the employees (Jennings, 2010). Although, Mr. Park was the chief executive officer, the courts ruled due to the position, conviction cannot be based merely on that purpose alone (“Open Jurist,” n.d.). Mr. Park ultimately stated he did nothing wrong; therefore, the company faced litigations against the rodent infested warehouse

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

I Support the majority opinion of the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. This case was based on school newspapers I believe students should be allowed it gives them a chance to express they talent though the press. No one can take freedom of the press away it one of our amendment. The principal didn’t have the right to cut off part of the article. The only time he had the right if it was Violate words. Also if the articles are related to the school or reasonably things the students have a right. Students have the right to show how they feel about things going on in their surroundings. If you ask them their opinion why cut off the answer you ask for.

In the wake of the Scopes trial in Tennessee, the State of Arkansas passed an “anti-evolution” statute in 1928, that made it illegal "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches the doctrine or theory that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animal.” Forty years later, the case of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) was argued before the Supreme Court. The case originated in 1965, when Susan Epperson was hired to teach 10th grade biology at Little Rock Central High School. The local school board had recently adopted, as a part of an approved curriculum, a new biology textbook that included a section on evolution. Immediately, Epperson recognised her dilemma; that to teach the required curriculum would put her at risk for dismissal under the “anti-evolution” statute. A suit was filed to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, and the State Chancery Court of Pulaski County ruled that the statute was unconstitutional. This ruling was overturned by the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1967. Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held that:

Synthesis- Smith and Hicock both received the death penalty even though the M’Naghten rule proves they should not have; the use of Capital Punishment in Kansas was reviewed due to this case because of their