Case Brief Of Kent V. United States

Facts of the Case: (Approximately 200 words) The case to place on March 2, 1801, when William Marbury was designated as a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury and several others were appointed to government post created by Congrees during the end of John Adam’s term as President. President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.

Laura Richart S. DioGuardi Criminal Law & Procedure 22 September 2016 CJ2300 Assignment 1: Case Brief Case: Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) Procedural History: Fred Korematsu was a Japanese- American who was sent to an internment camp following the enactment of Executive Order 9066 in 1942. This executive order required that all Japanese- Americans, some Italian- Americans, and some Jewish refugees be taken from their homes and placed in internment camps around the United States, with many being on the West Coast. This was in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor and was intended to prevent supposed espionage. Korematsu refused to transfer from the original camp in Manzanar, CA that he was placed in and was arrested and

This court case was about a man named Tim Hennis who murdered a mother whose name was Kathryn Eastburn and 2 of her daughters. The prosecution was The State Of Kansas and the Defense was Tim Hennis. They were arguing about if Tim was the killer of Mrs. Eastburn and her daughters. The facts of the case was that he was seen by a witness confessed to being there the night of the murder. The prosecutors are The State Of Kansas they believe that Tim Hennis raped and killed the mother and her two daughters.

Scarpelli had filed the writ based upon an allegation of a denial of his right to due process under the Constitution (Gagnon v. Scarpelli, n.d.). The district court agreed that revoking Scarpelli’s probation without a hearing was in fact a denial of his due process right. John Gagnon, Warden of the State of Wisconsin Department of Corrections, appealed this decision all the way to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States, where the district court’s ruling was upheld each time. Upon reaching the United States Supreme Court, there were two questions at hand: Is a previously sentenced probationer entitled to a hearing when their probation is revoked and is that individual entitled to representation by an attorney for the hearing? (Gagnon v. Scarpelli,

Jerry Douglas Mempa pleaded guilty to joyriding, and had been placed on probation for two years and the imposition of his sentence was deferred. Four months later, the county prosecutor moved to withdraw Mempa’s probation based on his participation in a burglary (Oyez,2017). Mempa petitioned the Washington Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus and claimed that he was denied his right to counsel during the proceedings revoking his probation. The Washington Supreme Court denied his petition. Counsel also assists the defendant in asserting his rights, such as the right to appeal, at the deferred sentencing stage

On September 25th David was arrested for vandalizing property and for burglary. David’s case became so popular in North Carolina because during his trial the state did not provide him with a lawyer. When David appeared in court he was informed of all the charges against him. The court also showed the footage of the defendants house where someone had entered his house to destroy his property and to steal.

Commonwealth. This is because the minority accepted Allen’s expert witness, Dr. Foley to testify on behalf of the defendant since his therapist had sided with the accusers who was a violation of the defendant’s rights. There was also no clear evidence showing that Allen will probably commit a sexual offense once set free from jail. The Commonwealth was unable to provide clear proof that the defendant was a violent sexual offender as per the provisions made by Code § 37.1-70.1. The judgment from the trial court was well illustrated revealing that the ruling was not based on whose expert opinions were better than the other, in fact, the court acknowledged that both experts were well experienced and convincing.

The entire process, from arraignment to sentencing, probably only took about five minutes. The latter, a rare occasion where a defendant chose to self-represent himself, had an entirely different outcome. At the sentencing, the judge once again had offered legal counsel, only to be refused by the defendant. He had been found guilty by the jury after deliberating for just under an hour. Charges included possession of cocaine, resisting arrest without violence, possessions of paraphernalia, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

Paul, the evidence from the DA’s office, the doctors, members of the Children's Institute International (CII) and clients. He had to work together with them to defend his case. This was shown when a plea bargain was offered to Ms. MaMartin. 2. How significant was discretion with respect to the defense attorney?

Lindsay Weeks Legal Brief 1. Title and Citation Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998) 2. Facts of the Case This case dealt with the introduction of the Line Item Veto Act which merged two primary acts that caused immense controversy among Congress. The first provision “gave the president the power to rescind various expenditures, it established a check on his ability to do so”.

The problem arose when the parents were dissatisfied with the due process hearing;

5). It was determined trial prejudice due to the gap in time prejudiced his ability to prepare for a defense. 6). The court reversed the court of appeals in their decision to convict Doggett’s drug conspiracy. They also found that indeed his right to a speedy trial had been violated due to the desertion of the government of that 8 and ½ year gap. 7). Due to the government’s long delay relief was granted, and the disregard by the government did trigger judicial

At last, under Justice Dominique Brommel, the case was taken to Burnswick and Burnswick’s attorney of lawyers. It was then forwarded to the Supreme Court. Justice Brommel, the prosecutor , was an idle city lawyer a year ago. He was now

Juvenile delinquency is a controversial topic when it comes to fighting for the juvenile’s interest in rehabilitating the juvenile; or, withdrawing from the interest for being a juvenile does not mean a juvenile deserves a slap on the wrist, for a crime done is a crime committed no matter if it is an adult or juvenile. Thus, 1.7 million juveniles under the age of 18 from crimes of loitering to murder are arrested each year (Siegel, Welsh, 2014). Subsequently, in the role of an assistant district attorney in the case of Shatiek being waived to the adult court is plausible because at the age of 15 years old, Shatiek’s is aware of his actions and thoughts. Though, his environment and upbringing are unfortunate, it does not excuse Shatiek to be excused from adult court in the crime committed of killing the victim.

The Supreme Court stated that “the interviews of the children were highly improper and utilized coercive and unduly suggestive methods.” The prosecution chose not to retry the case, resulting in the charges against Wee Care Nursery School teacher, Kelly Michael, being dropped. As a result, Michaels filed a lawsuit against the prosecution, claiming that they violated her constitutional rights by persuading the children to give false testimony against her. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear her case. Regardless, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, stating that the Court’s decision “…leaves victims of egregious prosecutorial misconduct without a