Florida Supreme Court Case Summary

Comparing these two cases, the legal system did not really work fairly to show justice because if in accordance with the absolute interpretation of the 8th Amendment and the 14th Amendment, Gregg will never be sentence to death; this not only unfair to him but also disrespects for the authority of the legal system. Let us finally look at the case of “Callins v. Collins” in 1994, in this case, even though the convict Callins was put to death by lethal injection, there was a justice stood up to struggle on save Callins’ life, and his name was Harry Andrew Blackmun, who had voted in “Gregg v. Georgia” to restore the death penalty. Blackmun claimed that he had no longer supported the death penalty because he did not believe that the capital sentencing procedures were still working, and restoring the death penalty was a big

A very significant case in Cook County Courts was the Bridgeport case, known as a “heater” case because of the publicity that surround it, and the racial overtones (Bogira 181). The Bridgeport case involved three white teenagers, Michael Kwidzinski, Jasas, and Caruso that were accused of brutally beating two young black boys who were riding their bikes in the predominantly white neighborhood. The entire summary of the case, in Courtroom 302, was based around the fact that one of the boys, Michael Kwidzinski, was most likely innocent. The question then turns to the boy himself, Michael Kwidzinski; if he was innocent, why did hid then accept a guilty plea bargain?

The Zimpfer vs. Palm Beach County Case is a lawsuit filed by Mr. Bryce Zimpfer against Palm Beach County claiming an infringement of the age discrimination in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Zimpfer has worked for the county's worker relations area for approximately 16 years i.e. since he was 52 years. Mr. Zimpfer applied for the position of employee relations manager as a vacancy in this position was advertised by the county. Following considerations and evaluation of all applications, Mr. Brad Merriman, aged 33 years was chosen by the county to fill the vacancy. As a result, Mr. Zimpfer filed a lawsuit with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which he hired an attorney, Ms. Lynn Szymoniak to follow his case. In her pursuit of the case, Szymoniak attempted to obtain a settlement with the legal representatives of Palm Beach County while equipped with a complimentary report from Dr. Mary Josephs, an I/O psychologist.

The Morse v. Frederick landmark Supreme Court case paved the way for the manner in which authority intervention can occur within the public school setting. As the case made its way from district court, to appellate court, to the final Supreme Court destination, it saw many opinions, differing verdicts, and arguments. Through this process, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morse, which mirrored my opinions and understanding of the case.

Duane Buck, a death row inmate, has served more than twenty one years for murdering his ex-girlfriend Debra Gardner and Kenneth Butler. He accused Kenneth for sleeping with Debra and also shot his stepsister in the chest, who survived. After shooting Kenneth, Gardner ran to the street and was chased until she was gunned down while her children watched. Even though the crime should be punished, bucks attorneys argue Mr. Buck was denied a fair trial. Walter Quijano, a psychologist, gave his testimony during the trial stating that Buck was more likely to be a future danger because of his racial color. What surprises everyone is that Buck’s defense lawyer was the one who called Quijano and evoke the testimony. Even though the racial testimony had no place in the trial it still didn’t justify whether they should throw out the death sentence. No racial testimony appeared to be in his early appeals due to his counsel’s impotence for introducing it. Still it was very believable because this was not the first case Quijano made a similar testimony that had violated an inmate’s constitutional rights. Bucks lawyers tried to use this information to fight for Buck but they were not successful because the courts ruled Buck had waited too long to raise the issue. The argument here is if Buck is

Even though flawed expert testimony and racism caused misuse of the evidence in the “Trial by Fire” and “Snow Falling on Cedars,” the truth actually showed a man innocent and free. Given the compelling and overwhelming evidence, it is clear that Willingham and Miyamoto were wrongfully convicted. The reputation of Willingham and Miyamoto is hereby restored; however, no one can restore the life of Willingham. The wrongful convictions of Cameron Todd Willingham and Kabuo Miyamoto demonstrate a remarkable and profound failure of the judicial system of the U.S. These cases expose the urgent need for the legislative branch to become actively involved in formulating a solution to ensure that a tragedy like these cases never happens again. When the

For my first civics project, I took advantage of the online opportunity and chose to watch an argument of the Florida Supreme Court v. Dale Norman. This particular case was taken to the supreme court to decided whether Mr. Norman was protected under the constitution for carrying an open weapon (non concealed) in Florida. In Florida it is illegal to carry an open weapon in public but he claimed that due to the second amendment, it was his constitutional right. In the end, the Supreme Court decided that Florida's law for concealment does not violate the constitution because the right and the ability to defend yourself with a firearm does not directly have anything to do with having the weapon concealed or open. Here is the link I used to find

The Supreme Court ruled announced their ruling on June 28, 1978 but there was not a majority opinion. Four major justices, Rehnquist, Stewart, Burger, and Stevens, voted against the minority admission program for all school because it violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The other four justices, Marshall, Brennan, White, and Blackmun, voted that the affirmative action is acceptable within certain areas. However, the plurality opinion was given by Justice Powell. This gave the ruling a 5-4 in favor of Allan Bakke. Powell gave his opinion that the using racial quotas as the deciding factor of one’s admission was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, affirmative action is permissible by Universities but only if used alongside with other factors. This meant that Universities had to discontinue their quota system for minorities and that UC Davis violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Under these circumstances Allan Bakke was allowed to attend UC Davis.

In 2008 through 2011, America fallowed the Casey Anthony murder trial extraordinarily closely (Rawlings, 2011). This case had all of the needed elements to create a one of the most notable trials ever conducted in such a public fashion (Rawlings, 2011). The trial was put on display in fount of the entire country, with every persons feeling strongly as to guilt or innocents, with the majority swaying towered guilt (Rawlings, 2011). With such a public display and strong sentiments, the level of anger that was displayed left no room surprise when a “Not guilty.” Verdict was rendered (Rawlings, 2011).

Bobby James Moore was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death after shooting a clerk during a robbery. The petitioner challenge his sentenced by arguing that he was intellectually disable and, for that reason, needs to be discharged from the death sentence. The state habeas court concluded, by looking at previous courts decisions Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida, that Moore was intellectual disable and for that reason recommended to the upper court that the death sentence that Moore received was violating the Eighth Amendment. The upper court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), did not accepted the recommendation of the state habeas court. Instead, the CCA stated that the lower court use invalidated guides and wrongly determine the intellectual disability of the petitioner. The CCA used older guides, called Ex parte Briseno, and with the factors proposed by that guide the court determine that it was sufficient evidence to declare that Moore did not have intellectual deficits. The high court granted the

In the case of Peter v. North Carolina, we the jury find Michael Peterson not guilty of first degree murder of his wife Katherine Peterson. The information that was presented in this case does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael was motivated by an act of malice when he had decided to take away the life of a loved one. Because of this occurence, Michael is currently facing another trial in order to see if he is guilty for a crime he did not commit. As a jury, we cannot condone the act of putting an innocent bystander in a position to be imprisoned if he is not condemned of the charges that is handed down from court. Convicting Michael as a murderer in this case would take away the freedom that he deserves and distort the peaceful atmosphere that surrounds his family.

The Ohio Vs Roberts case of June 25, 1980 was one filled with controversy due to the opinions presented by the head of the jury during the case termination. This case involved Roberts, the defendant, who was accused of having a record of breaking the law. He was convicted for possession of drugs (heroin), being in possession of stolen items and forgery (Maltzman et al, 2000, pg 57). Others included the case were Ms. Isaacs, a witness and the Ohio State as the plaintiff. This case stirs up reactions incorporated from the state's strategic

However, in further details we decided to write about two cases that have been solved one with a negative result and another with a positive outcome with racial bias in capital cases. “However, The Baldus Study has given a big lead to the disagreement in the allegations in the Georgia courtroom against capital punishment which has pertained to an African American in the equal justice”(Baldus Study,2015). Another important case in our court system is the McCleskey v. Kemp. McCleskey was presumably charged with the murder of an officer in Kemp, which the cop was white and McCleskey was black. During this trail the court had argued that there has been observed to be discriminated in various cases throughout our system. Thanks to the evaluation of David Baldus in his study, we can see the positive effect of the real outcomes with these cases. “Also the recognition of these published cases that have been passed in the protection against racial discrimination in appeals, which is called the Charging and Sentence study” (Baldus, 2015).

Under the ruling, the state need to establish grounds were not parties who had or would associate with the defendant should be allowed to voice their comments or present any evidence for the state, since it could be tainted and not given well. On this ground, the case should have

In compliance with the United States Constitution, “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” (U.S. Consitution. Art./Amend. XIII)”. The infamous trial in the state of Kansas, State v. Hickock and Smith, documented in the iconic true crime novel In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote details the events of the murder of four innocent people and the trial of their killers. Upon reading Capote’s depiction of the trial, readers are placed in the position of deciding if the rights of Richard Hickock and Perry Smith were violated during their trial, and whether or not justice served in the case of State v. Hickock and Smith.