The Significance of the Right to Effective Counsel in a Criminal Case and Powell v. Alabama The right to counsel is a fundamental common law principle that aims to set a fair criminal trial. The right to have the assistance of counsel for defence is the right of a criminal defendant to have a lawyer assist in his defence‚ even if he cannot afford one. This right comes from a variety of sources‚ the first one being the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution‚ which is the part of the United
Premium Law United States Constitution Jury
Right to Remain Silent Tayfun Tokac CRJ 411 Professor Wilson One of the landmark cases in our history which affected the law enforcement is Miranda v. Arizona case. This case had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States‚ by making what became known as the Miranda rights part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. Ernesto Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape of an 18 year old girl by Phoenix Police Department. Mr. Miranda
Premium Miranda v. Arizona Police
recognizing our government’s hypocrisy and lies; the problem is that we’re too willing to put up with it. The problem isn’t opening our eyes to the truth‚ it’s getting us to do something about it. The powerfully symbolic film V for Vendetta uses the voice of one anarchist‚ V‚ to influence thousands of people into standing together against their fascist government and fight for freedom. Although set in England‚ the film appeals to American viewers by reflecting similar policies now carried out by the
Premium V for Vendetta Totalitarianism
Eisenstaedt v. Baird II. CITATION: 405 U.S. 438 (1972) III. FACTS: On April 6th‚ 1967 at Boston University in William Baird violated Massachusetts law at the time when he handed a condom and a package of Emko vaginal foam to an unmarried 19 year old young woman. At the time of the incident‚ under Massachusetts state law “Crimes against Chastity” makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug‚ medicine‚ instrument‚ or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States United States Constitution
Abington Township v Schempp Date: Decided In June 17‚ 1963 or Feb 27‚1976 Problem: Schempp filed suit on the Abington school district for requiring students to read verses from the Bible in Pennsylvania. Outcome: Schempp argued that it was unconstitutional‚ violating religious freedom. Part of the constitution: The First amendment: exercise of free religion‚ speech‚ and press The fourteen amendment: Never should any state impede the life‚ liberty‚ or property of a person Precedent: Got
Premium Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States
Casey (1992). The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) reaffirmed Roe v. Wade (1973). The issue addressed was‚ if any state can force a woman seeking an abortion to wait 24 hours‚ if married‚ require consent from her husband‚ and‚ if she’s a minor‚ have parental consent (Oyez). The case was a 5-4 decision in favor of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. This decision reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. The Court upheld the 24-hour waiting period and the parental consent
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Planned Parenthood v. Casey Roe v. Wade
Introduction There have been many Supreme Court cases that dealed with many concepts of the law‚ like obscenity for example. As a matter of fact‚ obscenity is a concept that Miller v. California deals with. To be more specific‚ this case deals with what is considered obscene‚ and if the specific obscenity mentioned in this case is protected by the first amendment‚ the freedom of speech. I will now explain this case in more depth. What brought this case about? In 1973‚ Marvin Miller‚ operator
Premium First Amendment to the United States Constitution Obscenity Supreme Court of the United States
Moon v Whitehead (2015)‚ is a case dealing with the tort of trespass to person: battery. The appellant‚ Moon‚ appealed the decision of the trial court on the basis of consent. Moon claimed he received adequate consent from the respondent‚ Whitehead‚ while the two were in Sydney attending a work conference. He and the respondent shared an apartment with separate bedrooms for the period of the conference. The respondent pleaded that on 13 August 2007 the appellant came into her bedroom uninvited and
Premium Law Appeal Jury
Lana Phan Case: Dred Scott v. Sandford Facts: This lawsuit involves Dred Scott‚ an African American slave and his owner due to the passing of his previous owner Dr. Emerson‚ John F. A. Sanford. John F.A Sanford is the brother to the wife of Dr. Emerson. Dred Scott sued for his freedom in the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis on April 6‚ 1846 . Dred Scott’s legal suit is for assault and false imprisonment: “A slave could be punished and kept as property‚ but a free person could not
Premium Slavery in the United States American Civil War Slavery
The Supreme Court case of Sessions v. Morales-Santana deals with the issue of whether or not a distinction based on gender in establishing derivative citizenship for immigrants violates the 5th amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The questions presented by this case are: (1) Whether Congress’s decision to require different physical presence requirements for unwed citizen mothers than unwed citizen fathers in order to pass citizenship to a foreign- born child violates the 5th amendment’s guarantee
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Marriage