Shiners Case Study

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).

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.

Prior to the settlers of 1882 were the Seminoles and Miccosuki tribes. These Natives ruled the land but did nothing to change it, then, in 1882 came the settlers from outside of Florida. They didn’t see the Everglades as beautiful or delicate like the Natives, they saw it as useless. So much that they decided to drain them. From 1905 to 1910 the settlers destroyed the Everglades.

The Shiners participated in peaceful protest in order to stop the developers from building on the land. This action is protected under the First Amendment. This Amendment also makes the denial of the Shiner’s application for a peaceful protest in front of the Florida State Capital Building, a violation of their rights (Grimes, 1978). The government had nothing to base their denial on besides their disapproval of what they Shiners are protesting against. The past protest by the Shiner’s did not result in violence nor did they take any action to incite individuals to turn on

I believe the constitutional reason of the holding in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford was unfair and unconstitutional in which CJ Taney decision ruled in favor of Sanford and therefore, failed to recognize the rights of the people to be free.

According to the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. citizens have the right to a “fair and speedy trial.” However, in Alabama, the fairness of these trials are controversial due to state laws permitting judges to override a jury verdict on life sentences and impose death sentences. Now being the only state that allows judges to have this power, the state has been under extreme scrutiny from all sides of the political spectrum. Yet, even after multiple cases against the state and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Alabama law still allows judges to have the ultimate decision on criminal sentencing. (Equal Justice Initiative, n.d.)

Obviously Mr. Cheek still maintains he was acting in good faith even if his defense is idiotic and unreasonable. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected that contention and affirmed the convictions.

I, Omnisha Philostin, am writing to recognize the official requests in the State of Florida. I totally comprehend that the rights are not certain. In view of the way circumstances are being taken care of and the point of custody set that is given when it is in the government hands to follow up on a circumstance. The primary thought is totally understanding that the sincere importance and the message of the Bill of Rights is a rule that is adjusted between the state and the government. For instance, the government driving individuals out of their homes. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which ensures individual protection and the privilege to be free from bizarre interruption from the government. Indeed, the tragedy is possibly destructive

“In Barker v. Wingo, the Court stressed the legitimate reasons for the 16 trial continuances. But is there a danger that prosecutors might illegitimately seek continuances?”

Issue: The issue of this case is substantial in nature. The question is if the President has the privilege, regarding of Article II in the United States Constitution, to stand above the law and not follow instructions given to him by the Supreme Court.

I believe that the ruling of the court in this case is consistent with a Christian worldview,

During March 2007, A department of justice refused to answer the questions about a senate hearing on the firing of 8 U.S. attorneys citing the fifth amendment right which is “Not to incriminate himself”. Although, the official said that the Monica Goodling will not testify cause of senator have before decided that wrongdoing occurred. However, Goodling who is the senior counsel even liaison

The project we are discussing is the case issue of Nixon vs. United States. The Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Walter Nixon was convicted of perpetrating perjury before a grand jury. Before this commotion, he was nominated by Lyndon B. Johnson.

For a considerable length of time, the Supreme Court has been occupied with a vigorous push to improve the jury's part in criminal courts. Juries in Florida capital punishment cases have just an admonitory part in any case, and even that impact on the judge is conceivably decreased by the absence of unanimity and by the judge's power to settle on the key choices in any case. The Justices endeavored to control that part, and give a greater amount of it to the jury, in a 2002 choice yet the Florida Supreme Court has basically exempted the state's death penalty process from that running the show. Arizona thirteen years prior, the Supreme Court decided that a judge may not make the genuine discoveries about "disturbing variables" — the wrongdoing's reality that can make an individual qualified to be sentenced to death — on the grounds that that part under the Sixth Amendment has a place with the jury.

A description of the issues the political appointees faced in this case and an explanation of federal ethics law violations