Hickock And Smith Case

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

When we hear about a killing on the news, our natural instincts are to immediately antagonize the killers. More likely than not, we hate the killers, and hope they get a vengeful prison sentence. In Truman Capote’s true crime non-fiction book, In Cold Blood, we learn about the murders that took place in Holcomb. The story is about much more than the slaying of a respectful family, its focus is on the killers, Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. One of Capote’s main purposes in the book is to convey the multiple perspectives of a crime in order for the readers to view the killers as more than just the bad guys, and he achieves his purpose primarily through the use of pathos, anecdotes, and his chosen narrative.

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Facts: John Angus Smith attempted to trade a Mac 10 machine gun for 2 ounces of cocaine. Smith was then arrested for possession of cocaine and a fully automatic weapon. Federal law requires a mandatory minimum prison sentence for 30 years if a machine gun is "used" in the commission of a drug offense, and because these two things were used in conjunction, Smith was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

The assumption approach is the result of two Supreme Court cases, Horowitz and Ewing. In Horowitz, a medical student brought a due process claim against the University of Missouri-Kansas City for dismissing her for academic reasons. The Supreme Court first discussed whether Horowitz had a protected interest. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff never alleged a property interest, but that if she were to do so, she would have to rely upon Missouri state law to have a valid claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court assumed the plaintiff had a property interest in her case without deciding the question. Instead of addressing the property interest question, the Supreme Court found that the university provided the plaintiff sufficient process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the Supreme Court never determined whether the student had a property interest in her education.

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Appellant Brady was found guilty of first degree murder by the Maryland Court system. During his trial hearing Brady admitted to participating in the organization and forethought of the crime with a partner, although plead that he himself did not commit the crime. After disclosing his involvement, Brady’s lawyer admitted to his guilt but asked for a lesser penalty since Brady didn’t commit the murder. Before trial Brady’s council asked for all relevant information to the trial and were given most, but not all of it. The withholding of evidence was a violation of due process laws in which a new trial was requested. A new trial was granted but only for sentencing and not a retrial of fact.

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Payne was tried and convicted by the Tennessee Trial Court by a jury on two counts of first-degree murder and on one count of assault with intent to murder in the first degree. Payne was then sentenced to death for both murders and 30 years in prison for the assault. Payne appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court asserting that Mary Zvolanek’s testimony was “irrelevant,” and that her testimony violated his rights guaranteed by the 8th amendment as was applied in the cases of Booth. V. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989); however, the court concluded that Zvolanek’s testimony was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Following the Court’s decision, Payne appealed to the United States Supreme Court who heard his case.

Truman Capote’s magnum opus In Cold Blood was a revolutionary novel that tested the artistic merits of journalism. But, being a novel, it lacked the journalistic integrity of news writing and several of Capote’s own beliefs leaked through, revealing his own biases throughout the novel. Despite this however, it is also apparent that Capote maintains a measure of fairness as well by presenting thorough and accurate research that represents both sides of the story, even if he implicitly favors one side and accordingly emphasizes it more. Although Capote is clearly biased in his view that Smith and Hickock were unjustly put to death through an unfair trial, he is simultaneously fair in depicting the other side as well, despite his own personal

The novel, “In Cold Blood”, is a beautifully written piece of literature telling about the unexpected death of the Clutter family that took place in the small town of Holcomb. The author, Truman Capote, does a fantastic job explaining the tragedy, but more importantly the thoughts and feelings of the characters directly involved, including the beloved friends and family of the Clutters. By revealing the true killers, Dick Hickock and Perry Smith, Capote takes away the mysterious aspect of the novel, but quickly replaces it with inspiring arguments between the characters concerning capital punishment and what ways to proceed, for a crime such as this one. This is exactly the kind of literature William Faulkner, winner of 1949 Nobel Prize

Truman Capote was a revolutionary writer of Southern descent known for the work In Cold Blood, among others. In Cold Blood is a non-fiction story based on the murder events of a four-person rich family in Kansas. Capote came across this newspaper article in 1959 and researched this story for five years, becoming very close to the two murderers, Richard Eugene Hickock and Perry Edward Smith. Not only did he speak to these real-life murderers, he talked to the townspeople of Holcomb, where the murders were committed. Capote followed the police investigation and the eventual appeals process until the execution of Hickock and Smith in 1965 (Sparknotes.com ‘Context’). Using the Academic Search Complete Database in CSI’s library, Capote Classic 'In Cold Blood ' Tainted by Long-Lost Files by Kevin Helliker of Wall Street Journal analyzes “Truman Capote 's masterwork of murder, "In Cold Blood," cemented two reputations when first published almost five decades ago: his own, as a literary innovator, and detective Alvin Dewey Jr. 's as the most famous Kansas lawman since Wyatt Earp. Separately, a contract reviewed and authenticated by The Wall Street Journal shows that Mr. Capote in 1965 required Columbia Pictures to offer Mr. Dewey 's wife a job as a consultant to the film version of his book for a fee far greater than the U.S. median family income that year” (Helliker Abstract WSJ).