In the case of Mempa v. Rhay‚ which the accused pleaded guilty with the advice of court-appointed counsel to the crime of "joyriding" and was placed on probation for two years. Then soon after the sentence was deferred because he was involved in a burglary and sentenced to 10 years in prison but only would receive 1 year with the advice from the parole. This was achieved due the fact that the probation officer questioned by the probationer about the incident and the parolee admitted his involvement
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus
affiliates. FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY 1 Cranch 137‚ 5 U.S. 137‚ 1803 WL 893 (U.S.Dist.Col.)‚ 2 L.Ed. 60 (Cite as: 1 Cranch 137‚ 5 U.S. 137 (U.S.Dist.Col.)‚ 1803 WL 893 (U.S.Dist.Col.)) Page 1 Supreme Court of the United States William MARBURY v. James MADISON‚ Secretary of State of the United States. Feb. 1803. West Headnotes Action 13 2 250k3 Existence and Adequacy of Other Remedy in General 250k3(2) Remedy at Law 250k3(4) k. Acts and Proceedings of Public Officers and Boards and Municipalities
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Habeas corpus United States
recognized that those inmates do have less rights than free citizens. Taking away some rights of the inmates is a valid punishment and by restricting these rights it helps in maintaining security in prisons. The title of the case that I chose was Wolff v. McDonnell. This case was very important because it uniformed certain rights and freedoms within correctional facilities. “Although inmates received some procedural safe-guards to protect them against the notorious abuses of disciplinary meetings‚ they
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Law United States Constitution
1. The decision in Williams v Roffey moved away from the actual technicalities of finding traditional consideration‚ to actually looking at the factual benefit which a promisor may gain. In this sense it was stated that the duty to perform an existing contract could be good consideration so long as some kind of benefit went to the promisor‚ whereas previous to this performance of an existing contract was in fact no consideration‚ (as stated in Stilk v Myrick). This decision developed the doctrine
Premium Money Contract Plaintiff
Virginia v. Moore 272 Va. 717 Facts: The day was February 20‚2003‚ in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
The Kent v. United States Should teens be tried as adults? Furthermore‚ would it stop teens from committing a crime if they were thrown in adult institutions? There are teens who commit crimes that could be judged as adults “On September 2‚ 1961‚ an intruder entered the apartment of a woman in the District of Columbia. He took her wallet. He raped her‚ the police found in the apartment latent finger prints. They matched the fingerprints of Morris Kent” (Kent). Morris is one of those teens. This
Premium Crime Criminology United States
1. Name of the Case: Linda W illiamson v. City of Houston‚ Texas‚ 148 F.3d 462‚ 1998. 2. Facts: In 1990‚ Linda Williamson‚ a police officer with the City of Houston Police Department‚ was assigned to the Organized Crime Squad. Officer Doug McLeod‚ another member of this squad‚ began sexually harassing her on a daily basis and this behavior lasted for approximately 18 months. The harassing behavior occurred in front of other police officers‚ including the officers’ supervisor‚ Sergeant Bozeman. McLeod’s
Premium Police Appeal Constable
Mapp v. Ohio‚ 1961 According to the Court’s decision‚ why may illegally seized evidence not be used in a trial? Justice Tom C. Clark wrote on the courts behalf saying that it was logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine be insisted upon‚ even in the states. This doctrine is essential to the right of privacy‚ therefore evidence that is found illegally without a warrant must not be used in a trial‚ for this would be unconstitutional. Why‚ according to Justice
Premium Law United States United States Constitution
------------------------------------------------- CASE ANALYSIS REX V MCDONALD AND MCDONALD St Qd [1904] 151 ------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION In order for criminal liability to be placed‚ an accused must not only commit a specific act but also a breach of a duty concerned1. This concept was brought to the forefront in the case of R v McDonald and McDonald St R Qd [1904] 151. The Supreme Court of QLD2 was called to consider the case of Angus and Flora McDonald‚ appealing
Premium Criminal law Supreme Court of the United States Law
Marbury v. Madison is viewed as the most important case in the U.S. Supreme Court history. The important constitutional principle that was established by U.S. Supreme Court‚ was to use the idea of “Judicial Review”‚ which is the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Under Justice Marshall‚ the court began its ascent as equal in power to the congress and president. Jefferson as the new president‚ did not want appointees from the opposing party taking the
Premium United States Constitution United States Supreme Court of the United States