Roper V. Simmons Case Summary

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

Michael Kingsley, a petitioner who was awaiting a trial in Monroe county jail, filed a lawsuit against jail staff who used excessive force against him. On the evening of May 20, 2010, an officer performing a standard cell check noticed a piece of paper covering the overhead light in the jail cell Kingsley was being held in. The officer told him to remove the piece of paper, but Kingsley insisted that someone else covered the light. Several officers told Kingsley to get rid of the paper, but each time, he refused to do so. The jail administrator, Lieutenant Robert Conroy, ordered Kingsley to remove the paper the next morning, but he refused again. Lieutenant Conroy then told Kingsley that officers would remove the paper and he would be moved to a receiving cell.

As you are aware, the decision by the Court of the Barton v. Rona case (2012 ONSC 3809) recognized that although Mr. Barton’s misconduct was serious, his specific acts of misconduct were not severe enough to warrant his dismissal. The Court felt that in this situation, a stern warning to him never again to permit a safety violation by an employee would have been sufficient (p.13, para. 55). This was particularly the case, based on your investigation you have performed on April 24, 2009, given that nothing in his excellent work record and no prior infractions suggested that he would not be amenable to such discipline (p.10, para. 40) or that he would repeat such misconduct in the future (p.9, para. 38). Given that the Court could not find that his misconduct met the threshold of striking at the heart of the employment relationship (p.14, para. 55), it concluded that Rona had breached Mr. Barton’s employment contract, and Mr. Barton was entitled to damages as a result (p.14, para. 56).

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 122 S. Ct. 1237, 152 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2002)

Nature of Case: The District Court condemned Antoine Jones of previous drug crimes. The defendant asked for an appeal and then then it headed D.C. Circuit of Appeals which they ended up reversing the condemnation. They stated that the no warrant use of the GPS violated the fourth amendment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a rehearing en banc. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (review order of a higher court from previous court decision).

Coors won the case this is due to them petitioning for a declaratory judgment that the ban under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act of 1935 was unconstitutional. The Federal Alcohol Administration Act prohibited beer labels from displaying alcohol content. The Government argued that the labeling ban was necessary to suppress the threat of "strength wars" among brewers, who, without the regulation, would seek to compete in the marketplace based on the potency of their beer. The District Court invalidated the labeling ban, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Although the latter court found that the Government's interest in suppressing "strength wars" was "substantial" under the test set out in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public

In 1994 Mr. Latimer was found guilty of second-degree murder of his daughter Tracy Latimer, a 12-year-old girl who had a severe form of cerebral palsy. On a leave to appeal from the Superior Court of Canada (SCC), Mr. Latimer’s imposition of mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in this case, so the accused should receive a constitutional exemption from minimum sentences under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. During the second trial, the defence counsel asked the trial judge for a ruling, in advance of his closing submissions, on whether the jury could consider a defence of necessity. Whether the jury should have been allowed to consider a defence of necessity. The trial judge told counsel that he would rule on necessity after the closing submissions, and later ruled that the defence was not available. Whether the timing of trial judge's ruling as to the availability of the defence rendered accused's trial unfair.

reckless conduct and the emotional distress. Lastly, the fourth prong states that the injury must

This week’s case study, Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall as a means of protest against the policies of the Reagan administration. He was arrested by Dallas police officers and he was charged with violating section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code, which prohibited the “desecration of a venerable object.” In this case, it was the contention of the arresting officers that burning the American flag was an act of desecration which was punishable by law. Section 42.09(a)(3) of the Texas Penal Code was enacted by the Texas State Legislature, at the time when this matter was brought to trial, the parties involved were the State of Texas and Mr. Gregory Lee Johnson. The case was heard by three lower courts before it reached the United States Supreme Court. List those three courts in order, beginning with the court that has the most authority and ending with the court that has the least

Today I was able to have a quick interview with the honorable Mrs.Salvarez. I asked her a few questions about what she does in the government and if she could clarify some things.

As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical

The Missouri State Superior Court sought after the death penalty even though Simmons was only Seventeen years old at the time. Simmons’ was seventeen at the time of the crime and that placed him out in the criminal Jurisdiction of Missouri’s Juvenile Court system

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

Canada has become a country where laws such as: assisted suicide, prostitution, and abortion are becoming easily altered by higher powers; the power of the judges. Canadian judges are changing certain laws that affect the quality of living. The question comes down to who is truly in charge of law making in Canada? The government may make the laws, but judges may reject and change the entirety laws through the use of the entrenchment of the Charter. Additionally, judicial supremacy retains their power through a paradoxical parliamentary supremacy. Furthermore appointing government officials and electing government officials plays a tremendous part in correlations to Canadian democracy. To summarize, judiciary are too powerful through the entrenchment

Christopher Simmons was not your typical American teenager. Abused and neglected as a young boy, by the time he was seventeen years old he came a convicted murderer and was sentenced to the death penalty. His case quickly became under fire for overriding his Eighth Amendment right that stated that the federal government cannot impose cruel and unusual punishment upon anyone. Christopher Simmons was old enough and mature enough to understand that what he did was morally and socially wrong. If someone can completely conjure up a murder plot by oneself, then they should be sentenced to the death penalty no matter the age. Simmons should have received the death penalty despite his age at the time of the crime he