In this case, at a post-trial hearing, the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that Cunningham's victim was particularly vulnerable and that his conduct was violent, making him a danger to the community. The judge then concluded that this aggravating evidence outweighed the fact that Cunningham had no criminal history, and sentenced Cunningham to the high term of 16 years. The California Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court denied review because it had recently held, in People v. Black, that the DSL was constitutional under Blakely v. Washington. Cunningham asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and it agreed to do
During this case Ernesto Miranda a resident of Phoenix was charged with kidnapping, rape and robbery. Allegedly he confessed to committing these crimes, which the police had supposedly recorded. But because he had, had no counsel and he hadn’t been told his rights he was convicted and charged with 20 to 30 years in prison. But Miranda felt as if this was wrong, so he appealed the courts and got the case reviewed in 1966 by The Supreme Court. After the case was reviewed, The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the police couldn’t use the confession because they had failed to inform Miranda of his rights to consul and against self-incrimination.
He was tried and found guilty based largely on his own statement. He was sentenced to death, but the punishment was never carried out. The death penalty was ruled illegal within the United States in 1976 as a result of the Furman v Georgia case. Later, in the case of Gregg v. Georgia, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was allowed, but only in the event that
Berghuis v. Thompkins Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and several firearms related charges, in a Michigan state court. Thompkins went on to appeal and said that his confession was obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment and that he asks but was denied effective counsel at trail. “The Sixth Circuit held that the Michigan Supreme Court's finding that Thompkins waived his Fifth Amendment right was unreasonable because Thompkins refused to sign an acknowledgement that he had been informed of his Miranda rights and rarely made eye contact with the officer throughout the three hour interview” (Rosenzweig & Shatz, 2010). The Sixth Circuit found Thompkins did not waive his Miranda rights and that ineffective counsel unfairly prejudiced him. 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.
He also mentioned that a large majority of juveniles were sentence to life in prison without parole and that they not even killed no one but were part of a crime. After a voting against the law he couldn’t accumulated enough supporters. Then after the extremely modest nature of Yee’s bill, this flip flopping is baffling. The law didn’t change regarding juveniles sentence to life, but what the law change was that every youth who were convicted could ask the judge to reexamine their cases after 15 years in prison. It doesn’t mean that after they will go free what it means is that the
The police told Escobedo that his alleged coconspirator in the shooting of his brother-in-law had confessed and Escobedo was involved. The police were able to obtain a written confession, and Escobedo was eventually convicted of murder. Escobedo appealed his conviction, claiming his confession was obtained without his lawyer being present in violation of his right to counsel, and should be thrown out. DECISION/REASONING: The Supreme Courts decision held for the first time that defendants had a right to counsel even before they were indicted for a certain crime. Not allowing someone to speak with an attorney, and not advising them of their right to remain silent after they have been arrested and before they have been interrogated is a denial of assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment However, the decision was overshadowed by the court's Miranda decision two years later, and later decisions by both the Supreme Court and lower courts indicated the decision in Escobedo was to be limited to its facts.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II DIGESTS (2012 – 2013) ATTY. SEDFREY CANDELARIA GERTZ v. ROBERT WELCH, INC., 418 U.S. 323 (June 25, 1974) PETITIONER: Atty. Elmer Gertz RESPONDENT: Robert Welch Inc. (John Birch Society) SUMMARY: Robert Welch Inc, published an article that said Atty. Gertz framed a policeman in an earlier murder case which led to the policeman’s conviction, and that Gertz is a long-standing member of a Communist Front. Gertz sued for libel but the district court entered judgement in favour of respondent notwithstanding verdict of the jury.
He survived, but was given 20 years for the stabbing. ❑ Finally, Clarence Norris was sentenced to death, but the sentence was revoked. Norris violated his parole in 1946 and fled to Brooklyn, New York where he stayed until 1976, when he came back to Alabama and received a pardon. What I want to know is why one boy can be set free and another can receive a death sentence for the same alleged crime. If they were white men, they would never have been accused for this crime.
Florida case, the U.S. struck down as unconstitutional the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide. Although the court found that the state need not guarantee the offender eventual release, it held that if such a sentence is imposed on a juvenile it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term. In this situation a juvenile was wrongly convicted of homicide. This is a tragedy in my view because a young teenager, being wrongly convicted, had his whole life taken from him. This is the definition of corruption in the United States in my
United States (1966).It was considered the first juvenile case that preceded the reforms in the juvenile courts. It is this case that established the universal precedents where a juvenile case required a waiver before the minor was moved to a criminal court to be tried as an adult. The children’s judge in this case had failed to decide on any of the Kent’s Attorney’s motions and he ruled 30 to 90 years in prison inclusive of any time that would be spent in mental hospital. However, the Supreme Court reversed Mr. Kent’s case ruling it 5-4.This showed insidious change in the juvenile justice. The Supreme Court believed that there was a violation of Mr. Kent’s right to adequate assistance of counsel.