The Pros And Cons Of The Supreme Court System
When acknowledging case at the Supreme Court level it must be a case worth the argument to continue it. The Supreme Court is the highest court that a case can reach and doesn’t give the decision of the case but gives an opinion on what they believe is right and the lower court from which it came from decides what happens to the case. The Supreme Court deals with the highest level of cases and is the only court listed in the constitution (Federal Court Concepts). The Supreme Court is known for decisions in landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka which have helped shaped how America is today (Federal Court Concepts). The Warren court system was from
…show more content…
1953 to 1969 under Chief Justice Earl Warren (Oyez). During his time has Chief Justice he dealt with a lot of cases ranging from abortion to segregation and other minor issues. Under the Warren court’s Oyler v. Boles was one of the most controversial cases that attacked due process and habitual criminal sentencing in 1962. In cases there's usually one person being convicted of the crime but two people filed a habeas corpus application in the Supreme Court of Appeals alleging a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in that he had not been given advance notice of his prosecution as a recidivist (Findlaw’s). They both were convicted of a crime but noticeably to different crimes but in different states. William Oyler was convicted of 2nd degree murder in the state of West Virginia on February 5, 1953. The usual penalty for such a crime is 5 to 18 years in prison but his sentence was deferred and his motion for a new trial was overruled. The Prosecutor Attorney was granted leave to file in writing that Oyler had suffered three prior convictions in Pennsylvania. After his hearing of the punishment that was granted due to West Virginia's rule that if someone is convicted of three crimes, they are to be sentenced to life in a penitentiary (Findlaw’s). Oyler filed a habeas corpus application to the supreme court alleging the denial of due process under the fourteenth amendment. He felt that he wasn't given enough information of the law that was in place and wanted his sentences to be heard in the Supreme Court to have it overturned. He also attacked his sentence on the equal protection ground previously set forth. The next petitioner was Paul Crabtree in 1957. He pleaded guilty to forging a $35 check, which was a sentence from 2 to 10 years in prison. His sentence was also deferred and the Prosecuting attorney informed the court that Crabtree had suffered two previous felony convictions, one in the state of Washington and in West Virginia (Findlaw’s).In 1960 Crabtree also sent a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which he claimed the denial of due process because of the absence of notice which showed that he did not commit the crime in Washington, he also raised the equal protection ground (Findlaw’s). The question that was in place is should a defendant receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard relative to the recidivist charge even if due process does not require that notice be given prior to the trial. West Virginia believed that they shouldn’t be heard but Boyles and Crabtree had a different opinion and took it to the Supreme Court. This case was moved to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia where they ruled in a conservative direction and stated that the earlier decision be dismissed. Crabtree later said that he had served time for the one crime he committed in Washington for a term of 20 years. West Virginia’s law is a carryover from the law in Virginia which is that if you are convicted of three crimes that you shall receive life in prison. The Court of Appeals had to decide whether or not pass the case onto the Supreme Court or send it back down to the lower courts. It was to much of a controversy that it was sent to the Supreme court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. It was to be discussed if due process requires advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal accusation (Findlaw’s)Which Oyler got what he wanted and that was to be sent to the supreme court for his penalty to be overturned but the voting didn't go in his favor. During this case the Supreme Court Justices consisted of Earl Warren (the Chief Justice), Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Charles E. Whittaker and Potter Stewart (Oyez). The vote was divided almost completely in half 5 to 4 on February 19, 1962. The majority siding with Boles or the state of West Virginia saying that due process does not require advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal accusation. It does require a reasonable opportunity to defend against such an accusation, but the records show that petitioners were not denied such an opportunity and that the failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons who are prosecuted, and petitioners did not allege that the failure to prosecute others was due to any other reason (FindLaw’s ). The majority ruled it constitutional and that the law should be in place. Oyler and Crabtree was distraught at the decision that was decided as they believed that they would have succeeded but the state won instead. The majority voters were Clark, Stewart, Whittaker, Frankfurter and Harlan (Oyez). They had the conservative vote and agreed with what the state had said about the law that was in place.
Those who were the minority were Douglas, Black, Warren and Brennan, which they voted for the appeals and that Oyler was not given enough information and wasn't given time to state his side of the case (Oyez).
When this Court, years ago, sustained an application of West Virginia's habitual criminal law, it said: "Full opportunity was accorded to the prisoner to meet the allegation of former conviction. Plainly, the statute contemplated a valid conviction which had not been set aside or the consequences of which had not been removed by absolute pardon. No question as to this can be raised here, for the prisoner in no way sought to contest the validity or unimpaired character of the former judgments, but pleaded that he was not the person who had thus been convicted. On this issue he had due hearing before a jury." Graham v. West Virginia ( Findlaw’s ). So these four believed that Oyler should have the time to explain his side of what happened but Oyler didn't say anything and didn't speak up at his hearing but said that he was the one who did commit the crime and same for Crabtree so they are denied from a hearing before a jury because that admitted to committing the crime so it is the law that they be sentenced to life in prison.
The final decision was that the law written in West Virginia was constitutional and that Oyler is sentenced to life because it clearly states that if you say nothing expect that you didn't commit he crime you must be heard in front of a jury but Oyler and Crabtree both admitted to committing the crime so they are both sentenced to life in prison (Oyez). People must say that they didn't commit the crime in order to have a hearing and if they don't they will not be heard and sentenced to jail for
life.
Oyler v. Boles was the case that decided if someone has committed a felony three times they will be sentenced to life in prison. But if they want a hearing for this the must say that they didn't commit the crime and they will be heard in front of a jury and if they don't say anything they will be sentenced to life and can’t get out. Yes it seems absurd that someone can be sentenced to life in prison for three felonies but if you didn't commit the felony and want to fight it all you have to do is speak up and say you didn't commit the crime and you will be heard in front of a jury. Oyler raised a lot of questions to this law and the clarification of it but Graham v. West Virginia clarifies this law. In order to be heard you must speak up and Oyler and Crabtree learned that the hard way and the other petitioners.
1953 to 1969 under Chief Justice Earl Warren (Oyez). During his time has Chief Justice he dealt with a lot of cases ranging from abortion to segregation and other minor issues. Under the Warren court’s Oyler v. Boles was one of the most controversial cases that attacked due process and habitual criminal sentencing in 1962. In cases there's usually one person being convicted of the crime but two people filed a habeas corpus application in the Supreme Court of Appeals alleging a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment in that he had not been given advance notice of his prosecution as a recidivist (Findlaw’s). They both were convicted of a crime but noticeably to different crimes but in different states. William Oyler was convicted of 2nd degree murder in the state of West Virginia on February 5, 1953. The usual penalty for such a crime is 5 to 18 years in prison but his sentence was deferred and his motion for a new trial was overruled. The Prosecutor Attorney was granted leave to file in writing that Oyler had suffered three prior convictions in Pennsylvania. After his hearing of the punishment that was granted due to West Virginia's rule that if someone is convicted of three crimes, they are to be sentenced to life in a penitentiary (Findlaw’s). Oyler filed a habeas corpus application to the supreme court alleging the denial of due process under the fourteenth amendment. He felt that he wasn't given enough information of the law that was in place and wanted his sentences to be heard in the Supreme Court to have it overturned. He also attacked his sentence on the equal protection ground previously set forth. The next petitioner was Paul Crabtree in 1957. He pleaded guilty to forging a $35 check, which was a sentence from 2 to 10 years in prison. His sentence was also deferred and the Prosecuting attorney informed the court that Crabtree had suffered two previous felony convictions, one in the state of Washington and in West Virginia (Findlaw’s).In 1960 Crabtree also sent a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of Appeals, which he claimed the denial of due process because of the absence of notice which showed that he did not commit the crime in Washington, he also raised the equal protection ground (Findlaw’s). The question that was in place is should a defendant receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard relative to the recidivist charge even if due process does not require that notice be given prior to the trial. West Virginia believed that they shouldn’t be heard but Boyles and Crabtree had a different opinion and took it to the Supreme Court. This case was moved to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia where they ruled in a conservative direction and stated that the earlier decision be dismissed. Crabtree later said that he had served time for the one crime he committed in Washington for a term of 20 years. West Virginia’s law is a carryover from the law in Virginia which is that if you are convicted of three crimes that you shall receive life in prison. The Court of Appeals had to decide whether or not pass the case onto the Supreme Court or send it back down to the lower courts. It was to much of a controversy that it was sent to the Supreme court under Chief Justice Earl Warren. It was to be discussed if due process requires advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal accusation (Findlaw’s)Which Oyler got what he wanted and that was to be sent to the supreme court for his penalty to be overturned but the voting didn't go in his favor. During this case the Supreme Court Justices consisted of Earl Warren (the Chief Justice), Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Charles E. Whittaker and Potter Stewart (Oyez). The vote was divided almost completely in half 5 to 4 on February 19, 1962. The majority siding with Boles or the state of West Virginia saying that due process does not require advance notice that the trial on the substantive offense will be followed by an habitual criminal accusation. It does require a reasonable opportunity to defend against such an accusation, but the records show that petitioners were not denied such an opportunity and that the failure to proceed against other offenders because of a lack of knowledge of prior offenses or because of the exercise of reasonable selectivity in enforcement does not deny equal protection to persons who are prosecuted, and petitioners did not allege that the failure to prosecute others was due to any other reason (FindLaw’s ). The majority ruled it constitutional and that the law should be in place. Oyler and Crabtree was distraught at the decision that was decided as they believed that they would have succeeded but the state won instead. The majority voters were Clark, Stewart, Whittaker, Frankfurter and Harlan (Oyez). They had the conservative vote and agreed with what the state had said about the law that was in place.
Those who were the minority were Douglas, Black, Warren and Brennan, which they voted for the appeals and that Oyler was not given enough information and wasn't given time to state his side of the case (Oyez).
When this Court, years ago, sustained an application of West Virginia's habitual criminal law, it said: "Full opportunity was accorded to the prisoner to meet the allegation of former conviction. Plainly, the statute contemplated a valid conviction which had not been set aside or the consequences of which had not been removed by absolute pardon. No question as to this can be raised here, for the prisoner in no way sought to contest the validity or unimpaired character of the former judgments, but pleaded that he was not the person who had thus been convicted. On this issue he had due hearing before a jury." Graham v. West Virginia ( Findlaw’s ). So these four believed that Oyler should have the time to explain his side of what happened but Oyler didn't say anything and didn't speak up at his hearing but said that he was the one who did commit the crime and same for Crabtree so they are denied from a hearing before a jury because that admitted to committing the crime so it is the law that they be sentenced to life in prison.
The final decision was that the law written in West Virginia was constitutional and that Oyler is sentenced to life because it clearly states that if you say nothing expect that you didn't commit he crime you must be heard in front of a jury but Oyler and Crabtree both admitted to committing the crime so they are both sentenced to life in prison (Oyez). People must say that they didn't commit the crime in order to have a hearing and if they don't they will not be heard and sentenced to jail for
life.
Oyler v. Boles was the case that decided if someone has committed a felony three times they will be sentenced to life in prison. But if they want a hearing for this the must say that they didn't commit the crime and they will be heard in front of a jury and if they don't say anything they will be sentenced to life and can’t get out. Yes it seems absurd that someone can be sentenced to life in prison for three felonies but if you didn't commit the felony and want to fight it all you have to do is speak up and say you didn't commit the crime and you will be heard in front of a jury. Oyler raised a lot of questions to this law and the clarification of it but Graham v. West Virginia clarifies this law. In order to be heard you must speak up and Oyler and Crabtree learned that the hard way and the other petitioners.