How Did Abel Fields Stolen Valor Appeal

In the “Bethel School District v. Fraser” case, Fraser believed that the school violated his first amendment “freedom of speech” rights. Fraser gave a speech with some inappropriate content in it and the school gave him a three day suspension because two teachers warned him before he gave the speech. Fraser took it to court and the justices said they would shorten the suspension and let him have his right to speak at graduation because the school was taking away his freedom of speech.

He then went on to write to the United States Supreme Court, saying he had been denied counsel and his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The United States Supreme Court took his petition, and their decision was announced on March 18, 1963 that they ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon. Due to Gideon’s appeal,numerous other defendants were found to have had their Civil Rights violated. About 2000 individuals that had been convicted were freed in Florida alone as a result of the decision. Gideon’s case had another trial and he was acquitted and went on to resume his previous life.

The case Howes v. Fields was involved with the Miranda rights. The case is about an inmate´s confession about a sex crime without having the police officers questioning him telling him his Miranda rights. Mr. Fields had been brought to the jail of Michigan because of disorderly conduct. While being in jail Mr. Fields had been questioned by the police for several hours about the disorderly conduct. He was not told his Miranda rights, but he was told he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted too.

He then sent a petition to the Florida Supreme Court, claiming that his rights under the Sixth Amendment had been violated. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. So, he sent a letter to the United States Supreme Court asking them to hear his case, and they agreed. On January 15, 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon went to court again. The verdict was decided 64 days later, on March 18, 1963.

The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the eighth amendment and was constitutional. This brings up the question “Was the case properly determined by the Supreme Court or should it be Congress to decide?” Furman v. Georgia (1972) was a case similar to Gregg’s. A man was convicted of murder and burglary. He has sentenced the death penalty.

Therefore, most of society agreed that what he did was wrong and he should be punished for it. The court had to be just and fair in their decision by interpreting the Constitution to the best of their abilities without biased though. They were making a ruling on the question, “Is the desecration of the American flag by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?” (Texas v. Johnson).

The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated. Even though he was

Tejinder Singh, writer and contributor of Scotus, argues that the stolen Valor Act is "unconstitutional because the government had not shown that the statute is necessary to protect the integrity of the system of military honors . . . [and] the Stolen Valor Act posed a significant—and perhaps unique—threat to protected speech. " On the contrary, the Stolven Valor Act does not violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, but instead enforces the appreciation of our soldiers. If Fields had been convicted because he preached that he deserved the Purple Heart and contributed as much as an eight-year veteran of the military, then the Stolven Valor Act would have violated his First Amendment rights because he would be denied to publically share his opinion, and thus denied his freedom of

He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and they affirmed that the Act does not violate any constitutionality challenged the defendant. Facts 1. The defendant committed to serve time for certain crimes and he was prison released in August 1996. 2.

During Mr. Fields trial here we drew on two previous decisions made here. One was New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the court ruled that public officials cannot be

United States proved the Court’s abridgment of First Amendment protections of political speech. Similar to the Schenck case, Mister Debs’ criminal conviction for advocating against joining the draft was upheld by the Court. In this case the Court explained that the defendant “attempted to cause and incite insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny and refusal of duty” to the arm forces during wartime. Mister Deb’s dissemination of the message “you need to know that you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder,” was construed as harmful speech based on the “clear and present danger test.” Justice Holmes delivered the Court’s opinion once again.

The second issue is that the court held the government to failure to reveal its promise to Robert Taliento violated John Giglio due process rights established in Brady v. Maryland to receive all exculpatory evidence from the prosecution before trial. In relation, Napue v. Illinois, the undisclosed information proved that the government violated Giglio’s due process rights by presenting a false testimony from

Despite detailing the unfair treatment of baseball players at the words of the Reserve Clause, he never clarifies exactly how it is unconstitutional. He even mentions at several points where he talked to a lawyer friend about the case, as well as the executive board of the Players Association (130-131), but he doesn’t go into his specific legal arguments. While no one can argue for the Reserve Clause in terms of morality, if the clause doesn’t technically violate any laws in the Constitution, then the case is probably a lost cause. He closes out the article by trying to show the unconstitutionality of the clause using an analogy of an accountant in the same position (Flood 132), and if he had done the same thing while outlining exact violations of the Constitution in the process, this could have been a great article. As it is, it’s a very compelling thinkpiece that falls short with actual

One of those cases is US v Alvarez: a case that would see Xavier Alvarez prosecuted for falsely claiming to have received a Medal of Honor. Alvarez would have violated the Stolen Valor Act: an act that would criminalize those who have falsely claimed to receive a prestigious military award. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alvarez, stating that the Stolen Valor Act goes against Xavier’s First Amendment rights. (US Courts) A similar case involved the Agency for International Development and the Alliance for Open Society International.

It is fraud, you know it is fraud! What keeps you man?" (Miller 78). Those who were unhappy did not believe the court was protecting the innocent people the way they should. Some members of the community think that the court is not handling the prosecutions correctly and their decisions should be revised.