The complainant pleaded guilty to possession of a pistol during the incident. A finding that the appellant and his codefendants were the aggressors is inconsistent with the fact they called the police and remained on the scene until their arrival.…
On February 9th, 2002, Jodie Scheier slipped and fell in Jersey Joe’s Sports Bar & Grill after leaving her seat at a booth upon being called to collect a door prize. Jodie claimed that there were two steps awkwardly positioned that led to the booth, which caused her fall and the subsequent injury of her right index finger. As a hairstylist, Jodie relies on the use of her hands and fingers, and was unable to work properly because of the injury. Jodie did not mention her fall to anyone working in the restaurant, and continued to order three more drinks after her slip. No one in the restaurant found out about the slip until “several weeks later” when it was mentioned to the manager by a third party. Many other patrons had stumbled on, but not fallen because of, the two steps that led up to the booths in the sports bar. A splint was placed on Ms. Scheier’s finger for approximately 6 weeks, and she returned to work as a hairdresser after 10 weeks. Upon returning to work, Ms. Scheier found it quite difficult to carry out routine tasks, and gave up her job after 4 months.…
In July of 2000 Curtis Williams was indicted by a grand jury in Williamson County, Texas for aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. While under indictment, Williams traveled to Louisiana from Texas on a Greyhound bus. The bus Williams was traveling on was scheduled to make a stop at the Shreveport Greyhound Bus terminal on September 12,…
Wisconsin v. Avery is a major case between Steven A. Avery and the state of Wisconsin. Steven Avery was born on July 9, 1962 and grew up in a very small area knows as Manitowoc county in the state of Wisconsin. His family owns an auto salvage yard where abandoned vehicles are obtained for the sale of parts. Avery was not a smart man, his IQ was seventy and he “barely functioned in school”. He had a very rough childhood and he turned to crime through his teens and into his twenties. In 1981, Avery and and his friend were charged with burglary at a local bar and were each sentenced to two years in…
Facts: Police officers were in pursuit of a suspected drug dealer, and were led to an apartment complex. The officers ended up outside of a certain apartment, were the smell of marijuana emanated. The police knocked loudly, and from inside the apartment they heard movement, and the police believed that the sounds were an indication that evidence was being destroyed. The police announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked the door down to find drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain sight, and arrested King and others. They continued to search the apartment and came across other evidence. King argued that due to the officers not having a warrant…
In the case Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971) Harris was accused of offering in heroin to a covert officer on two events. In any case, Harris took the stand in his own safeguard yet denied the offense, and he asserted he sold the officer two sacks of baking powder. On round of questioning the arraignment utilized repudiating proclamations made by Petitioner to police not long after his arrest. The contradicting statements were made before Petitioner got his Miranda warning. Okay, I understand about the Miranda cautioning not given before Harris affirmation, but rather shouldn't something be said about the proof? Is it accurate to say that it was tested to be heroin or baking…
Is it constitutional to take away money from a person although it was gained for an interview with a publisher about one’s past crimes? Is it constitutional to take the money and give it to the victim of these past crimes? Does this or does not contradict the First Amendment which allows to express one’s mind freely with no discrimination concerning the context? The dispute over the Son of Sam law can be lead down to one question: whether speaking about crime is also a crime. Obviously, there could be two answers, one negative, and another one positive. According to the Son of Sam law, there is only one interpretation: if a…
In 1963, a Cleveland detective observed three gentlemen hanging out in front of a store and their behavior was somewhat suspicious. The detective suspected that the two gentlemen were planning to rob the store, so he decided to conduct a pat-down Terry and discovered a revolver in his coat. Subsequently, Terry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and later found guilty. The petitioner claimed that "stop and frisk" constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968, the Supreme Court established the standard for allowing police officers to perform a stop and frisk of a suspect in Terry v. Ohio case. Furthermore, a stop and frisk is detaining a person by law enforcement officer for the purpose of an investigation, accompanied by…
Presser V. Illinois was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1816. Herman Presser was part of a Citizen’s militia group, called the Lehr und Wehr Verein. They were a group of armed ethnic German Workers, they had formed in order to counter the armed private armies in Chicago. Herman Presser was indicted for arming a private army without having a license from the Governor. However, his charges were later sent to the U.S Supreme Court. Therefore after reviewing the case, and hearing Herman Presser’s testimony. The Supreme Court ruled in a 9/0 majority. The Supreme Court Stated “Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and…
In this case John Terry was seen by an officer, seeming to be casing a store for a robbery. “The Petitioner, John W. Terry was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.” The officer finally decided to approach the men for questioning, after observing them for quite a long time and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.…
Grutter v. Bollinger was also a case in which race was still used as an admission factor. This case involved the admission process to The University of Michigan's law school. Just as the University of Texas they used the hard data and soft data process to admit different students into their program. Race was used as a plus factor under the soft data category and the law school was seeking critical mass by becoming more diverse within its student population. Yet, the question was how did the university know the race of the person? As they did not have a so called race check box. They asked different questions such as where the students are from or what language was spoken within their homes. The court again said this was ok, as they school was…
In the year 1971, two parents whose names were Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller who were of the Old Order Amish religion and one parent whose name was Adin Yutzy who was of the member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church were accused under a Wisconsin law that stated all students under sixteen should go to school. The Parents all believed it was against their religious beliefs for their children to go to high school and they refused to send their children to school.…
It is good that most disputes are settled before reaching the Supreme Court because like previously stated, the Supreme Court does not have the capacity to decide on every legal dispute. In fact, an extremely small portion of cases reach this level because this legal of jurisdiction is for the most controversial and influential cases. Many cases are settled before even going to an actual trial. This allows the courtroom workforce to save time, money, and the effort of a tedious trial. In the Buffalo Creek Case, the ability to settle before going to trial ensured that the victims of the disaster would receive the most money they could without waiting out even longer for a trial.…
Their decision was based around the Fourteenth Amendment. They agreed with Lochner that the Bakeshop Act of 1895 was unconstitutional because it takes away people’s liberty. Also, included in that is the right to contract. It cannot take away that right of someone, like Lochner, determining labor hours for him or the employees. The State of New York cannot restrict people under those circumstances.…
The Bronx courts are so clogged that when a lawyer asks for a one-week adjournment the next court date usually doesn’t happen for six weeks or more. As long as a prosecutor has filed a Notice of Readiness, however, delays caused by court congestion don’t count toward the number of days that are officially held to have elapsed. Every time a prosecutor stood before a judge in Browder’s case, requested a one-week adjournment, and got six weeks instead, this counted as only one week against the six-month deadline. Meanwhile, Browder remained on Rikers, where six weeks still felt like six weeks—and often much longer.…