Supreme Court Justice Case Summary

The case, Murray vs. Pearson had been attacking the school legally since that summer and successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American Amherst University graduate named Donald Gaines Murray.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

On July 17, 2014, 43 years old black man named Eric Garner was selling loose cigarettes illegally on Staten Island. As the polices approach Erica to make their arrest, he raised both hands in the air and requested for both officers to not touch him. Meanwhile, the second officer came behind Eric and put him in a choke hold in order to restrain the 350 pounds man down to the ground. After he was restrained to the ground both officers roll him over onto his stomach. Within seconds after being roll over to his stomach Erica Garner repeatedly shouted to the police officer, "I can't breathe!", while he was laying on his stomach face down to the sidewalk pavement. Suddenly, the 350-pound black male died of compression of the neck from the officer's

Did the trial court err when it did not deem as admitted facts the allegations made by the Defendant in his Seconded Amended Complaint in accordance with MD Rule 2-323(e), which caused a violation of the Defendant’s fourteenth amendment rights?

Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Charles County, appellant, Sequan Taiurque Johnson (“Johnson”), was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of marijuana. On June 15, 2015, Johnson was sentenced to a total of fifteen months’ incarceration.

Ammar). It is clear from the Supreme Court's statements that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, as enunciated in Massiah v. United States and United States v. Henry, does not extend to the pre-indictment period. The taped conversations at issue in defendant's motions all took place prior to defendant's January 24, 2006 federal indictment while defendant was incarcerated for state parole violations. Even though defendant faced charges in state court, because defendant had yet to be charged in a federal indictment, defendant's right to counsel had not yet attached with respect to the federal charges. The Court denies Henry’s argument for suppression based on the Sixth Amendment right to

In Utah a Detective by the name of Douglas Fackrell received a tip of the whereabouts of drug activity taking place. Fackrell over a course of some days watched the house, where he concluded that there was in fact suspicious drug activity taking place. The man who exited the house went by the name of Strieff, who the detective decided to stop and question. By taking Streiff's I.D., Fackrell discovered a traffic warrant meant for Strieff. Under this warrant, the detective then arrested Strieff, and then conducted a search on Strieff due to the arrest. Due to this search, Fackrell found meth and a drug pipe inside

BRENDA WELLS, Administrator of the Estate of DANNY J. WELLS, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. VINCENNES UNIVERSITY, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF VINCENNES UNIVERSITY and SCOTT K. FONCANNON, Special Administrator of the Estate of JAMES JERNIGAN, deceased, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants. PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Benton Division. No. 89 C 4265. James L. Foreman, Senior District Judge. The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. OVERVIEW: The widow's husband died on October 3, 1987, while taking a ride in a plane that

Like many procedures in the criminal justice system, plea-bargaining has its pros and cons. The biggest advantage of plea-bargaining is the management it has on caseloads by weaning less significant cases out or reducing the amount of time that would be spent at a trail. The process decreases the prosecutor’s workload by letting them prepare for more serious cases. Along side reducing workloads, it also eliminates the cases’ uncertainty. It helps defendants with making sure they will not receive more serious charges for the criminal acts filed against them. Plea-bargaining also does not allow for the cases to get worse than it already is, in a sense it puts the case on pause. When a charged individual takes a plea bargain, the suspect will not be required to go through trial. This can be an advantage and disadvantage at the same time considering that crimes and damning evidence may never be discovered. By doing all of the things mentioned above, plea-bargaining allows for the justice system to figuratively take a breath. If all cases made it to a trial by jury, then the justice system would be simply overloaded and would not be able to sustain themselves and stay afloat because courts would be back up for years. Taking a look at the disadvantages: plea-bargaining can lead to poor case preparation and investigations. Some attorneys and judges often argue that plea bargains had led to attorneys not taking time to properly prepare their case, which also results in poor police investigations. It might also allow prosecutors to take full advantages of accepting criminal acts in the weakest trials, it could be considered biased to a prosecution party. An innocent individual also stands the chance of

Although many people may not like or appreciate the Plea bargaining clause in the criminal justice system but I think the plea bargaining is a good thing because it helps the criminal justice system to be processed more faster by helping the judges to get rid of numerous of case loads. If it wasn’t for plea bargaining, it would probably take criminals a longer time to appear before judges, which would lead the victims to wait for a longer time to see or gain justice. With that say, plea bargaining is a big helps to the criminal justice system, which I think that promote more good than bad regardless to which degree it results. In the meantime, when confronted with the choice to plea to a lesser charge in return for certain but less severe

Actually, the plea bargaining process has been rampant among the people experiencing challenges within the criminal justice system. It is reducing and makes the defendant avoid most of the trial costs. It

Plea bargaining is used for a verity of reasons, from lessoning the case burden on the prosecutor to helping them win, what they felt was an unwinnable case. The most controversial part of plea bargaining is that it occurs in private, and is only between the defense and the prosecutor. By hiding the dealings behind plea bargaining prosecutors are able to make “wink wink” deals where they might lessen the charges for one of the defenses attorney’s clients and the defense will encourage another client to accept a deal from the prosecutor. One of the biggest problems with plea bargaining is that innocent people could be found guilty, because they feel coerced into accepting a plea, because if they go to trail (for a crime they didn’t commit) and are found guilty they serve a lot more time than they would have if they accepted the prosecutors

It happens too much for something not to be done about it. When the criminal justice system relies on plea bargaining it can really have negative effects. People will tend to think that it is the only way about going at cases. It also makes the criminal justice system seem lazy in the way that 95 percent of cases end in some kind of plea bargain.

Many people are affected by the use of plea bargains in a positive way. For one defendants who could be facing multiple charges and potential years in jail, has the potential to get multiple charges dropped as well getting a significantly reduced sentence. In the judge’s case, the advantage of accepting a plea bargain agreement is that the judge does not need to schedule and hold a trial. Judges also know about jails being overcrowded, so it is also in the public’s interest to filter out the people who don’t need to be in jail for a long time out. The outcome of this process closes cases quicker than the expected pace and also the court system would not be as overwhelmed with court cases. One of the major reasons why people don’t go to trial is because they realize receiving the maximum charge if they go to trial will not be beneficial to them in the long run. Even those who are never rearrested, getting a charge reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor can show to be a critical benefit. Some employers may certainly not want to hire someone who was convicted of a felony. Felony convictions may be used in certain court proceedings to discredit people who testify as

In United States constitutional law, substantive due process allows courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference, even where procedural protections are present. The Courts have identified this protection from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In the Fifth Amendment it says “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces…” While the Fourteenth Amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property