“Even though I asked to be transferred here for the master’s program, coming here was a shock,” Michael Morton wrote on January 22, 2002, from his cell in the Ramsey I prison unit, south of Houston. He was replying to a letter he had recently received from Mario Garcia, a former co-worker at the Safeway in Austin where he had worked before being sent to prison fifteen years earlier. Besides his parents and his younger sister—who made the five-hundred-mile round-trip from East Texas to visit when they could—Garcia was the only person from Michael’s previous life who had stayed in contact with him. Virtually everyone else believed that he was guilty. Throughout the fall and winter of 1986, his case had been splashed across the front pages of…
A young man is arrested on charges of attempted murder. The is then taken to the local jail where he is…
HISTORY: At bench trial the District Court ruled for defendant, finding as a matter of law that…
Business owners and landlords have a duty to protect patrons and tenants from foreseeable criminal acts of third parties occurring on their premises.…
Nature of Case: The plaintiff is Peter Stanley. He said that his rights to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment have been violated. He believes that the Illinois law that makes children of unwed father's wards of the state upon death of the mother violated his rights.…
On July 15th 2008, Caylee Anthony was reported missing by her mother, Casey Anthony. Casey Anthony said that her daughter was kidnapped by their “Zanny”, but it was later found that she had lied about having a nanny. Weeks later, Caylee’s body was found in a wooded area not too far from their house and Casey was being held for the murder of her daughter. Casey claimed her daughter had accidentally drowned in their pool and as a result, she became panic-stricken and did not know what to do, she acted as if the drowning never happened. The prosecution believed Casey drugged her daughter with chloroform and suffocated her by situating tape over her nose and mouth. A single strand of hair was found, in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car, which demonstrated post-mortem banding which was found to belong to Caylee Anthony. Along with the strand of hair, Casey’s car gave off an effluvium of a corpse but she claimed the odor was set in place by her…
In the case at Gigantic State University, students that were a part of the SFT committed several careless acts. Within this particular case there was a definite crime that was committed because both Prudence’s physical and mental integrity was harmed. Not only could this case be classified according to the textbook as an intentional tort against persons but could be put into intentional tort against property. Torts against persons are intentional acts that harm an individual’s physical or mental integrity (Kubasek, pg. 111). A person who is legally injured may be able to use tort law to recover damages from someone who is legally responsible, or “liable,” for those injuries. According to the case, Prudence’s physical integrity was harmed…
The first amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting thee press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. Restricting the Monkey Juice billboards have raised an important constitutional issue which our company will use in our effort to challenge the ordinance. Because prohibiting the billboards that advertise alcohol is directly regulating speech, then it is safe to say that is directly violate the right of free speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution.…
In 1857, a slave named Dred Scott went to the north with his owner. While the two men got to the north the Scott’s owner died. From this Scott looked at himself as a free man. He even sued for freedom. He argued that if is owner died in a free territory that would make him a free man. Scott went to the Supreme Court to defend his freedom. The court ruled seven to two that Dred Scott was not a free man and he had to return to slavery. Scott grew with anger and still believed he should be free. The court’s decision was final and Scott was later forced back into slavery. During the Dred Scott case Chief Justice ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and he decided to abolish it.…
In the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford which was decided on in 1857, it was decided by the supreme court that African americans- free and unfree were not considered citizens of America and were not allowed to sue in civil court. The court also ruled as noted by Alex McBride that “That Congress lacked power to ban slavery in U.S territory and that the rights of slave owners were protected by the fifth amendment because slaves were to be considered as property and not citizens.…
Criminal law- involves an offense where the entire community is harmed and the remedy is a fine or imprisonment for the offender. The responsibility of pursuing a violation of criminal law rests with the state. Where as, civil law does not directly harm a community and the remedy for a violation of civil law is to sue the violator and order the violator to pay damages. A person may be charged criminally and sued civilly.…
Does notoriety affect the outcome of a criminal court proceeding? A trial’s outcome should not be based on the notoriety of it, yet it is. Due to media coverage, the length of the trial, and the notoriety of the people who committed the crime, the outcome of the trial is affected. The Manson trials and the trial of Leopold and Loeb are two prime example of how notoriety can affect a criminal court proceeding. An analysis of two criminal court proceedings, the Manson trial and the trial of Leopold and Loeb, reveals that notoriety does affect criminal court proceedings. Even though criminal court proceedings should be based on unbiased information and evidence, overall, the notoriety of the case impacts it.…
How do you feel about the fact that wrongful convictions occur in the United States?…
Modern society hinges upon the concept of true equality throughout daily life. So why should the court system not be equal as well? With the re-institution of trial by combat the playing field that is the courts would once again be equal. No longer would those with greater finances win a court dispute every time simply because they can afford better lawyers. Now should people wish to proceed by normal means they can, trial by combat is an optional choice to settle the dispute in question. Also should a person wish to invoke trial by combat but they are physically unable to do so they can call for a champion to fight in their place. Is this not what equal means, for both sides to have the same chances of winning regardless of where they come from or what their history is?…
who helped the brothers avoid arrest after the killing, was sentenced to thirty five years after he was found guilty of accessory after the fact to first-degree murder and evidence tampering. This is one example of…