Facts: In February 2001, Speelman moved into a BHA subsidized apartment with her two minor children. The following month Speelman’s probation was revoked, and she was sentenced to 75 days in jail. BHA was aware Speelman was on probation. She then arranged for her 19 year old daughter, Audrey Larson, to care for her children at her apartment. BHA was not notified Speelman had been incarcerated or of the new occupant in the residence. Office Lowell English, BHA’s police liason, was responding to a complaint about Speelman’s children running around the apartment complex at night. After his visit, officer English found Speelman was incarcerated. On June 2, BHA sent a notice stating Speelman’s voucher payments will be terminated as of July 31st. The letter also states Speelman has the right to appeal the decision by writing a request for a hearing within 14 days. Even though Larson had access to Speelman’s mail, she was specifically instructed only to open mail from the children’s school. Speelman returned to her apartment on June 17th to find the termination letter, and sent a request for a hearing on June 23rd, which is seven days after the deadline. BHA denied the request stating her response was untimely, and she lost her funds.…
Katz (the appellant) was convicted under an eight-count indictment, charged with transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston. The evidence, telephone conversations overheard by the FBI agents with an attached electronic listening and recording device, to the phone booth Katz used. The Court of Appeals rejected the contention that the recordings had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.…
In the state of Ohio, the courts have taken a pro-business approach, at least regarding the nursing home industry, as is evidenced, by the ruling of the Supreme court in the Hayes v. Oakridge case. In analysis of this case, the case involved a lawsuit filed against The Oakridge Home, an Ohio nursing home, by a former resident, Florence Hayes. The lawsuit alleged that while Hayes was a resident at the nursing home, she suffered serious injuries in a fall and that the fall was the result of negligence by the nursing home staff. Oakridge entered a motion seeking a stay of the court proceedings because, Hayes had signed an arbitration agreement in which she agreed that any malpractice claims she might assert against Oakridge would be resolved…
Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse against Kailyn. Kelbel testified that the head injury of Kailyn was inflicted by a cup thrown at her head by step brother Evan. Kelbel also testified that other injuries found on Kailyn were caused by Evan and that he is "rough" with her. Medical examiners ran an autopsy on Kailyn's body and determined that the injuries had been caused by blunt trauma and force caused by a knee or fist. Medical examiners testified that the injuries caused could not have been caused by a cup thrown at her head or by an accidental fall down the stairs. Kailyn's mother, Lindsey, also testified that Kailyn had previous injuries that she became concerned with. Upon retrieving a search warrant, police entered Lindsey's home to find further evidence. Police found a dent in the wall near Kailyn's bed. After Kelbel was eventually found guilty of the charges brought, Kelbel filed a motion for a judgement of aquittal and for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The district court denied the motion.…
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…
Facts: An undercover police officer watched a controlled deal from inside his unmarked police car. When the deal was over, the undercover police officer radioed for uniformed police officers to move in on the suspect, who was heading towards a breezeway in an apartment complex.…
One of the many things learned at state police academies around the country is the “Terry pat”. What a Terry pat is, is a basic pat down of a suspects outer clothing, searching for weapons. The name came be known by a Superior Court case in the 1960’s, known as Terry v. Ohio.…
Twenty-five years old, Nancy Cruzan, was in an automobile accident on January 11, 1983. She was driving an old car, which lacked seat belts. Massive injuries resulted in her falling into an unconscious state, unresponsive to outside stimulation. Doctors estimated that Nancy’s brain had been without oxygen for at least fourteen minutes before she was found. A person who goes without oxygen for more than six minutes suffers brain damage that is beyond repair. She was placed on life-support equipment and was fed intravenously. After emerging from a three-week long coma, Nancy remained in a “persistent vegetative state,” a condition in which an unconscious person displays motor reflexes but exhibits no indications of significant cognitive function.…
In 1965 a group of individuals in Des Moines held a meeting to protest the Vietnam War. The group decided to fast and wear armbands as a sign of there disapproval. The principals of the Des Moines schools heard of the armband protest and adopted a policy banning any student from wearing the armbands at school. Any student caught wearing the armband at school would be asked to remove it, and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the armband. John Tinker and several other students decided to wear the black armbands to school and in return they were sent home until they would come back without the armband. The students did not return back to school until after New Years day. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court in which was dismissed due to the constitutional authority of the school to prevent disturbances.…
Case: Near v. Minnesota 1931 U.S. Supreme Court Parties Jay Near (Plaintiff) State of Minnesota (Defendant) Facts: A publication, The Saturday Press, published an article alleging that City officials of Minneapolis were complaisant with gangsters who were engaged in illegal activities in the city. A Minnesota law was in effect which allowed the state courts to enjoin a publication which was engaged in a public nuisance. To be a nuisance the publisher had to be printing material that was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory.…
The case of Kansas v. Hendricks involves the respondent Hendricks filing suit against the State of Kansas in regards to the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Hendricks believed his incarceration through this Act would be considered double jeopardy and he was being convicted of the same crime twice. Hendricks had been found guilty of sexually molesting children. He was incarcerated and was nearing the end of his sentence when he filed the suit against the state of Kansas.…
It was determined in the case of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) that upon the trail and conviction of said name petitioner for murder was sentenced to the death penalty. However their was challenge for cause based on an Illinois statute, that allows for any individual juror member that when question at the point of being accepted as potential jurors. If it is determined that he or she would rule in favor of the death penalty, or even rule against the death penalty. The prosecution would be permitted to exclude the prospective jurors for cause with out investigating the determining factor of an impartial ruling. So the supreme court denies the defendant after he…
Most importantly, the 1905 Jacobsen v. Massachusetts was a Supreme Court case whereby the Court upheld the ultimate states’ authority to impose compulsory vaccination laws. It articulated that an individual’s freedom should at times be subjected to the states’ police power and subordinated to the collective public welfare. The Court decision in the case elicited numerous questions regarding the state government’s power to safeguard the public's health, as well as the protection of personal liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. The Court also articulated that the states had the authority to protect its citizens from dangers of diseases for their own good, which necessitated the enforcement of the compulsory vacation laws (NCBI, 2005).…
Plea bargains are an assertion in a criminal case between the prosecutor and the respondent that ordinarily includes the litigant conceding so as to get a lesser offense or sentence. Plea bargains are frequently alluded to as truly simply building up a common affirmation of the case's qualities and shortcomings, and don't really reflect a conventional feeling of Justice. In principle, courts are glad to host the individual gatherings work out an answer independent from anyone else, yet it makes one wonder…
Using the fairness and justice decision-making process it made me decide that the use of plea bargaining was unethical; due to the fact that it was not fair that criminals who have committed unlawful acts like rape, robbery, and numerous horrendous crimes were given leniency just because they are acknowledging they executed the offense. Stating your guilty doesn’t mean they reflected upon their actions and are ready to start a new leaf. They have instigated the felony and it is only right that they get the full consequence of their atrocity. Furthermore, what’s worse is that because of the pressure and fear of being convicted, the innocent plead guilty and the immoral run free and continue to disrupt the peace of the community. In conclusion, there is no fairness and justice when there is plea bargaining.…