PA 205-04: Introduction to Legal Analysis and Writing Professor Brandy Kreisler Unit 1 Assignment Abstract This analysis will go over what occurred in Texas during the Johnson v. Texas Supreme Court case. Looking into what statue was in place and what it prohibited; further explaining which branch of government created the statue. Along with which courts where involved. The state of Texas had placed a statue that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag (Texas Penal Code Section 42.01(a)(3): [Good!] Desecration of venerable object).
O’Mara and Elliot both were charged with attempted cross burning and conspiracy to commit cross burning. O’Mara pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to a jail time of 90 days and was fined $2,500. Elliot was found guilty by the jury of attempted cross burning as well and was sentenced to 90 days in jail and a $2,500 fine. This Court case was decided on Monday, April 2, 2003 with 2 votes for the Virginian Law, and 2 votes against it. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented the judgment saying, “Cross-burning itself should be a First Amendment exception, as others have argued regarding flag-burning.
Running head: Armington / Double Jeopardy Armington / Double Jeopardy Paula Ahl Kaplan University LS311: Business Law 1 Professor Allen January 20, 2013 Armington / Double Jeopardy In the case of Armington who while robbing a drugstore, shot and injured Jennings, the drug store clerk, was convicted in criminal court of armed robbery and assault and battery. Later Jennings filed a civil tort suit against Armington for damages. Armington stated that according to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution he could not be tried again for the same crime because this would be double jeopardy. As stated in our text “double jeopardy is defined as being tried twice for the same criminal offense” (Miller & Jentz, 2008). However, prohibition against double jeopardy does not preclude the crime victim from bringing a civil suit against that same person to recover damages (Miller & Jentz, 2008, pg 137).
Rioters began violence at the famous corner of Florence and Normandie where they threw beer cans at surrounding cars and attacked any passing people. Around the same time, protesters gathered and rallied around news stations like KTLA. Daryl Gates, the chief of the LAPD, originally claimed the police had the issue under control, but it progressed into the declaration of an official "State of Emergency." Two thousand National Guard troops are deployed to popular spots to prevent violence. Later that day, Gates announced that there were four thousand more National Guard members requested and intended to be deployed the next day.
There was a populous presence of law enforcement there from cops to militant members and everything in-between. The guards ordered everyone to disperse or risk getting detained. That then sparked a “pigs get off campus” chant by the protesters. The protesters started throwing things at the guards and the guards responded by tear-gassing them. When that didn’t work and it became clear that they were not going to disperse, at around 12:24 pm 77 National Guard members fired 67 rounds from M1 Garand rifles into the croud killing 4 and wounding 9 others, thus violently ending the protests.
Hodges v. Carter, S. Ct of N. Carolina [1954] Professional Negligence – Standard of Care Relevant Facts: In 1948 pl’s drug store was destroyed by fire and at the time pl had four insurance policies with four different insurance companies against this type of loss. All four declined t opay any part. Dfs were attorneys hired to represent pl. In 1949,Dfs filed complaint and summons, but mailed copies to the State Insurance Commissioner as service of process custom dictated. The trial ct determined the custom was valid and entered judgment, the insurance companies appealed and won at the S. Ct. of N. C. In 1952, pl’s brought action against the df’s claiming dfs were negligent in prosecuting pl’s actions against the insurance companys by using an improper service of process, and failure to issue alias summons at the time initial action was pending.
The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular cases. The precedent it sets shakes the judicial system foundation to its very core. Taking legal decisions out of the hands of a majority and putting it in the hands of one. Terri’s law was ruled as unconstitutional in a seven to zero vote by the United States Supreme Court.
In 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 in favor of the FCC "Golden Globe Statement". The ruling states that accidental or unplanned outbursts of profanity or indecency on television and/or radio are subject to fines and other disciplinary action. This stricter policy came about because several incidents involving celebrities that drew widespread public complaint, including Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the super bowl, and Cher, Bono, and Paris Hilton all cursing during a live broadcast of an award show. Fox appealed the Supreme Court decision. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided that the FCC policy on fleeting expletives is random, not enforced consistently and violates the First Amendment.
[pic] [pic] [pic] [pic] Medgar Evers Byron De La Beckwith (1963 & 1994) Bobby DeLaughter The assassin was white supremacist Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan and a man with an intimidating and violent personality. Beckwith was arrested, tried, and acquitted by an all white jury. Years later, in 1994, Assistant District Attorney, Bobby DeLaughter, reopened the case. This led to a retrial in which the jury convicted Beckwith, 31 years after the act, of assassinating Medgar Evers. The story of Beckwith's second trial is the subject of the 1996 film entitled Ghosts of Mississippi.
The case of Graham vs Florida cleared out any confusion about the LWOP. When Terrace Graham was 16 years old, he was convicted of armed burglary and attempted armed robbery. He served a 12 month sentence and was released. Six months later, Graham was tried and convicted by a Florida State Court of armed home robbery and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, he argued that the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment and moreover constituted cruel and unusual punishment, and that violated the Eighth Amendment.