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).
The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing education.” The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights. Reputation alone is not constitutionally protected interest. The three justices (minority opinion) disagreed with the findings of the majority. The dissenting opinion reasoned that the decision justified that intrusive action defamed and stigmatized the respondent as a criminal. Justice Brennan, writing for the minority, reasoned an illegitimate and improper enforcement of law that assaulted the constitution (Chicago Kent College of
Respondent alleged that while he was being considered for the position of United States Attorney, petitioner [472 U.S. 479, 481] wrote two letters to President Reagan. 1 The complaint alleges that these letters "contained false, slanderous, libelous, inflammatory and derogatory statements" concerning respondent. App. 4-5. In particular, the complaint states that the letters falsely accused respondent of "violating the civil rights of various individuals while a Superior Court Judge," "fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud," "extortion or blackmail," and "violations of professional ethics."
They processed it and later found out there was traces of his wife’s nightgown, skin, and blood all from the deceased victim. The evidence was then admitted at trial. Murphy then proceeded to appeal his conviction stating that they conducted an unlawful search and seizure which goes against his 4th and 14th amendment rights. Issue: Whether the taking of the substance underneath the defendants fingernail without his permission was unlawful. Decision of the Court: His charge was held and he was charged for the murder of his wife.
3d 498 (1990), to give an idea of false imprisonment. In this case, the court helped identify some of the points, which helps to identify the act of false detention. The court could not find anything in this case that proved that the victim was forced for detention. In this case, the victim was less than 14 years of age at the time of leaving home and the victim had no evidence that could prove that he was falsely detained. If the action of false detention is identified with any necessary action, it is often considered as a brainwashing of the victim (George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness).
9. Assuming Miss Meanor is found guilty, when will the Judge impose sentence? 10. What is the maximum sentence to be imposed? Scenario #2 Frank Felon a native of Akron Ohio was arrested by officers from the Cleveland Police Department for allegedly committing felonious assault on Vince Victim also of Akron during a tailgate party prior to the Barry Manilow concert at the “Q” Arena on June 29, 2011.
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).
This case proceeded in London and was said to be a strong influence in the abolishment of capital punishment in the United Kingdom. Evans was executed in 1950 for the murder of his wife and 13-month-old daughter. Evans maintained his innocence through the whole trial and told investigators that his neighbor, John Christie murdered his family. There was not much evidence against Evans and the case was said to be really weak but he was still executed on March 9, 1950. The police coerced Timothy Evans into a false confession by threatening him.
Sentencing scheme is unconstitutional b/c of overlap that inevitably tilts sentencing scales toward DP imposition 3. Permitting jury to enter sentencing hearing already across threshold of D-E entrusts determination of man’s life or death to “a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death.” vii. Vague ACs: 1. Godfrey v. GA (1980, p. 147) a. Δ admitted he had been thinking about murders for 8 years & would do it again (convicted of 2 murders) b. AC: § (b)(7): outrageously or wantonly vile murder, horrible, & inhuman c. Δ’s claim: § (b)(7) is unconstitutionally vague b/c GA SC tied AC to torture, aggravated battery, or depravity of mind – none of which were found by jury d. Held: DP imposition unconstitutional b/c did not fall w/in GA’s definition of the phrase i. Court concluded that GA SC’s constitutional construction of the AC was unconstitutional b/c there was no principled way to distinguish this case from cases in which DP wasn’t imposed ii.
In the early 1980s, Harrelson was convicted of murdering federal judge John Wood with a high-powered rifle, and is currently serving his sentence in a Texas prison. During the stand-off that preceded his arrest, Harrelson not only confessed to killing Judge Wood, but also said he had been involved in the Kennedy assassination. Harrelson later retracted his statement about having taken part in the assassination, claiming he had fabricated it under the influence of cocaine. When arrested, Harrelson was found to be carrying the business card of R. D. Matthews, who, according to the HSCA, was acquainted with Jack Ruby and with other Dallas crime figures. At Harrelson's trial, Joe Chagra, the brother of the man who was believed to have hired Harrelson, testified that Harrelson was given the contract to kill Judge Wood after he claimed to have participated in the JFK assassination.