Robert Younger Case

George Heirens, William’s dad, and William’s mom owned a floral business, but due to the Great Depression, it went out of business. After several failed employments, his father found a job on the police force of Carnegie Steel Company, which he worked his way up to a special investigator. After their floral shop went out of business, William’s mother worked as a fancy pasty maker in a baker and then she went to designing and executing custom made clothes. William has a younger brother, Jere, he is three years younger than William. There is allegation that family history includes insanity, epilepsy, alcoholism and mental defectiveness.

It’s always good to start investing money at an early age, however, it’s a hard start. Many banks have improved interest rates as well as no opening fees to start a savings account. Stocks, such as health and technology are also currently going up. Billy should start by saving small amounts of money per week for two years and placing it in a savings account. He should also buy health and tech stocks, such as Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), and keep a diversified portfolio, along with buying bonds.

Murphy was on probation after been found guilty of a sex related charge that took place in 1980. Murphy was obligated by the court to enroll in treatment and be honest with his probation officer when they do conduct their scheduled meetings once a month. When Murphy’s probation officer ask him questions Murphy revealed of his past act of rape and murder, that took place in 1974. The offender Murphy claims that his 5th amendment, which allows a person to not incriminate oneself, was violated when his probation officer asked Murphy a series of questions.

From ethical and legal perspectives, what do you feel business has learned from the Scrushy situation?

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

In the matter of Fare v. Michael C. (442 US 707) (1979), Michael, the offender, was arrested on suspicion of murder in Van Nuys, California. Michael, 16, was already on probation and had a long history of criminal offenses. Before any questioning, Michael was advised of Miranda Warnings, per Miranda v. Arizona. Upon being informed of Miranda Warnings, Michael had requested to see his probation officer. This request was denied by law enforcement. Michael C. had never asked for an attorney and, upon his request being denied, Michael proceeded to make statements without an attorney present. These statements made to law enforcement eventually led to Michael incriminating himself.

In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation’s government, laws, and protections of its citizens’ unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey’s The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016) traces the country’s judicial history by highlighting the Court’s great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of

When they interrogated Michael they did so multiple times in a span of two days. Further, their last interrogating, the one during which Michael confessed, lasted six hours (“United States,” 2010). The fact that Michael spent so much time being interrogated, definitely increased the likelihood of him providing a false confession (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). Another factor that played a role was the fact that Michael was only 14 at the time (“United States,” 2010). His age meant that he was not yet developmentally capable of handling this situation. Michael, as a 14 year old, was more likely to spend time thinking about the present instead of the future, and might not contemplate the full consequences of his actions. Therefore, it is very likely that he confessed to escape the situation, without completely releasing what the consequences were going to be (Costanzo & Krauss, 2015). Further, Michael was also alone when he was interrogated (“United States,” 2010). Had the police provided him with an uninvolved third party that would look out for his well-being and help him understand the situation he was in, he might have been less likely to falsely confess (Costanzo & Krauss,

During the trial, Kent counsel made the defense that he was not criminally responsible, instead, he stated that “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.” Although he did everything to prove his client was not fully responsible, Kent was sentenced to serve five to fifteen for each count he was charged with, his counsel went before the Court Of Appeals, and asked for a revisal arguing that Petitioners detention and interrogation was unlawful, the police failed to notify his parents as well as follow the procedure of the juvenile act. The case was denied by the Court Of Appeals but overturned by the Supreme court. This resulted in the idea that there must be waiver hearings before a juvenile can be transferred to criminal court, as well as a juvenile can consult with his or her counsel before and during hearings. Another case that is very important for juvenile rights is In Re Gault (1967), A fifteen-year-old named Francis Gault along with his friend were taken into custody by the Arizona police, now was already on probation for a previous offense that involved being in the company who stole a wallet and purse. The reason he was taken into custody was a neighbor who was a victim of his rude, sexual remarks and the cops arrested him and put him in a detention center until

Dred Scott was born a slave in the state of Virginia around the 1900s or the nineteenth century. Dred Scott spent his whole childhood has a save. He served the family of Peter Blow and then as a young adult moved with them to Louis, Missouri. Then, in the early 1830s, he was sold to Dr. John Emerson. Dr. John was an army surgeon. Due to his profession, Emerson had to travel frequently and was appointed to various military posts. Well, Emerson took Scott with him to Fort Armstrong, Illinois in 1833 and Fort Snelling in Wisconsin in the year 1836. To emphasize, both of these forts were on free soil or slavery was prohibited. To add, Illinois was free under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and Wisconsin was free under the Missouri Compromise

The Civil War was a war that was fought in America between the years of 1861 and 1865. It included two sides, the North and South. Before the war started. there were many events that helped lead to this war. These events included the tensions growing between the North and South Side due to their different views on slavery. It also included the Dread Scott Decision and the Election of Abraham Lincoln.

Ernesto Miranda’s written confession confession included a signed statement saying that he had a full understanding of his fifth amendment rights. Miranda argued that he was never told his rights nor did he understand them. In the fifth amendment of the United States constitution it says that an accused person cannot be forced to witness against their self, also the sixth amendment states that the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Miranda claimed that he neither knew his fifth amendment right to remain silent or his right to have a lawyer present during questioning. He argued that a suspect who didn’t have any prior knowledge of his rights would feel pressured to answer all the questions posed by the interrogators. They used his written testimony to convict Miranda. Since Miranda didn’t know he didn’t have to answer all the questions, his confession wasn’t voluntary (alavardohistory). Therefore since it wasn’t voluntary he was forced to “witness” against himself. As a result the actions of the police violated the fifth amendment.

There would be a constitutional issue because juvenile have certain constitutional rights at negotiation, such as the right to a lawyer and the right to challenge and interrogate witnesses, but they have no right to a trial by jury. The subject of juvenile’s rights is poorly defined in the courts, somewhat because the public as a whole has not decided how much independence to grant juvenile. When most juvenile’s supporters talk about juvenile’s rights, they are not stating to the same rights detained by adults, such as the rights to vote. Instead, they mean that more importance should be placed on juvenile’s standing as “regular persons” eligible of benefits under the law as providing in the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Just as in the case of Jeffrey Arnold that faced charges of domestic violence against his father in Fostoria Municipal Court, Ohio in 2013 (Trevas, 2016). Even though the father gave a statement at the time of the incident, when it came time for trial, the father refused to testify against his son invoking his Fifth Amendment right. Jeffrey Arnold was still convicted due to the evidence in the case even with his father invoking his privilege.

When 15-year-old Gerald Gault was on probation, he and a friend made ‘obscene comments’ in a telephone call made to a female neighbor. At the hearing, Gerald had no counsel. On top of that, the victim, the neighbor, was not present, and there was no evidence presented. He was found guilty and sent to a training school. Personally, I think that the trial was really in violation of due process rights. From what I have learned in the past, all suspects have access to an attorney, and they have a right to be able to face the victim in their trial. Having Gerald adjudicated delinquent and sending to a training school was unfair to him. He had an unfair trial, and therefore should have had the option to be retried with the victim and an attorney present.