Decided January 22, 1973. Facts Hitchcock appeals his conviction by a jury of six counts of presenting fraudulent income tax refund claims to the Internal Revenue Service. He was already serving a life term for murder in the Arizona State Prison when he committed these tax offenses for which he received six concurrent five year sentences to run consecutively to his life sentence. Hitchcock’s Arizona prison cell was searched without a warrant and documentary evidence was found which was received by the court over Hitchcock’s motion to suppress. He contends that his Fourth Amendment right was violated by the warrantless search and seizure in his prison cell.
Name and Citation; Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 Court; United States Supreme Court Judicial History; The inmate, in the Department of Correction, in the state of North Carolina, filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the state did not provide them adequate resources and assistance to assist them in preparing their legal documentation. They were denied access to the courts, in violation of their 14th amendment right, by the state's failure to provide them with research facilities. The district court agreed with the prisoners finding that the library in this state prison was “severely inadequate” and that there was no other legal assistance available to the inmates. The district court granted the prisoners motion and ordered the state to develop a plan that would give the prisoners the ability to do their research. Facts; The prison in North Carolina only had one library for the inmates to you.
The Westerly licensing ordinances do not even approach the necessary level of specificity constitutionally mandated, and the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success. Prior Proceedings: Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from holding a show cause hearing on September 24, 1990, concerning revoking the plaintiff’s entertainment license. The plaintiffs’ moved for a preliminary injunction and met the requirements. Defendants failed allege sufficient harm. Issue: Are the ordinances written by the Westerly Town council constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Stewart filed a motion to suppress the physical evidence on January 7, 2008. The federal court denied his motion on February 14, 2008. The trial court ruled that the suitcase was abandoned, defendant did not express possession after learning its location, and since defendant abandoned the suitcase, he did not have an expectation of privacy in the suitcase or its contents. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea on March 6, 2008. Defendant appealed his suppression hearing under his right to appeal.
Goldring was dismissed from the case, and the trial proceeded against just Medlantic. The jury found Medlantic liable for breach of confidential relationship and awarded damages in the amount of $250,000 (Doe, 2003). The jury found against Doe on the invasion of privacy claim because Goldring’s disclosure was not within the scope of Goldring’s employment with Washington Health Center (Doe, 2003). The jury also found that the lawsuit was filed within the one-year limitation periods. This verdict was then reversed by the trial court in favor of Medlantic.
The issue in this case is as followed: “Whether a state court’s determination that a defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were not violated — where he was interrogated for three hours while silent before making an incriminating statement and where his lawyer failed to request a limiting instruction — is entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254” (Rosenzweig & Shatz, 2010). This case concerns the extent to which Miranda prohibits police officers from persuading defendants to cooperate, where the defendant has neither explicitly invoked nor waived his right to remain silent. In addition, this case examined the contours of habeas petitions under the context of Fifth and Sixth Amendment claims as well as the deference due state courts. Among other likely effects, the Supreme Court’s decision may affect the way in which police officers go about questioning criminal suspects and the ways in which defense attorney’s deal with jury instructions.
U.S. Supreme Court MENNONITE BOARD OF MISSIONS v. ADAMS, 462 U.S. 791 (1983) Case Outline: Mennonite board of missions v.Adams Date Argued : March 30,1983 Decided : june 22,1983 Parties: Appellant : Mennonite Board of missions (MBM) Appellee : Adams Forum: U.S.Supreme court Appellant legal argument: He had not received the constitutionally adequate notice of the pending tax sale and of the opportunity to redeem the property following the tax sale. Appellee legal argument: Adams filed a suit in state court seeking quite title as no one redeems the property during the redemption period. FACTS • In March 1, 1973 Alfred Jean Moore executed a mortgage in favor of appellant MBM in Elkhart, Indiana that she had purchased
* Writ of habeas corpus- A court order that requires jailers to give reasoning as to why the prisoner is in custody. Protects individual’s rights. Constitution prohibits suspension of this. * Ex post facto laws- A law that makes a now illegal acts punishable for those who committed them when they were legal. Prohibited in the
The Federal District Court upheld the tiebreaker and dismissed the charges because they said that State law did not bar the District’s use of the racial tiebreaker. They said the State’s Civil Rights Act bars only preferential treatment programs where race or gender is used by government to select a less qualified applicant over a more qualified applicant. The Parents appealed and the Circuit Court reversed the decision. The Court found that while achieving racial diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling government interests, Seattle’s use of the racial tiebreaker was not narrowly tailored to achieve these interests. The District appealed this decision and the Ninth Circuit Court sat En Banc to hear the case.
Parole and Mandatory Release CJS/230 9/20/2012 Parole and Mandatory Release Parole is the discharge of a prisoner, proceeding to the ending of the prisoner’s court-sentence, with a short while of observation to be positively finished by obedience with the circumstances and terms of the discharge contract systematically ordered by a Commission. The choice of the Commission to liberate a convict will signify an act of refinement of the said State and must not be reflected as a right. The difference between parole and mandatory release is mandatory release is the order of a prisoner to be released from prison, generally because the release required by statute. Upon a convict serving his time a mandatory release date will