U.S. v Fields In the case of Abel Fields v. The United States, Abel Fields was convicted for falsely claiming that he received a Purple Heart Award for bravery. However, he had never served in the military, and he had never actually received a military award. Fields was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, stating that it is illegal to make false claims about receiving many types of military awards. Punishment includes fines and imprisonment. The appeals court overturned Fields’ conviction. Fields has argued that he is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, granting him the right to free speech. He has also argued that he didn’t harm anyone, and the he didn’t receive anything valuable from his false claim. Fields’ prosecutors are arguing that intentional lies should not be protected, as this is perjury. They are also arguing that lying about receiving the Purple Heart award damages the integrity of the award, and that is makes the award less valuable for actual recipients. In the case of the New York Times Co. …show more content…
Fields made a false claim about receiving the Purple Heart, however, (a) nothing he did threatened public safety, (b) he did not “steal” the award from anyone, and (c) he has the right to free speech, even if what he is voicing is false or unpopular. First of all, nobody was injured or killed due to Fields lying about his award, so there is no apparent threat to the people. Second of all, Fields didn’t physically take the award form someone who rightfully earned it, he went and bought one himself. Third of all, according to the Constitution of the United States, every citizen has the right to express themselves. Though what Fields claimed was not true, he still has the right to do so. Referencing back to the case of Texas v. Johnson, just because what someone is saying is not liked by society, doesn’t mean that he or she has to be
1. When Stan Johnson told Trooper Cummings to come in he gave him permission to enter his home and the opportunity to begin a conversation. I do not believe that the police acted in an improper manner in this case. Stan identified himself, invited the officer into his home, and proceeced to distribute cocaine to the undercover cop. I agree with the court decision to not dismiss the case because they were able to prevent the misuse and intent to sell drugs to other people. 2.
Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.
Ronald Watts, 48 years old, a District tactical sergeant, and a patrol officer named Kallatt Mohammed, 47 years old, were both parts of the 2nd District tactical team in the Chicago Police Department. On the eve of February 13, 2012, both officers were formally charged in the U.S. District Court of Chicago by the Northern District of Illinois United State Attorney, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, with government funds theft. Mr. Watts was an 18-year police veteran and Mr. Mohammed was with the Chicago PD for 14 years. Their arrest was due to unseal complaints of police criminal misconduct by two whistleblower officers, Shannon Spalding and Daniel Echeverria , followed by a thorough investigation of, special of the Chicago Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert D. Grant and the police department’s Internal Affairs Division.
The Brownsville Raid of 1906 is a historic but tragic moment in our nation’s history. It was the center of national controversy at the time. Occurring in Brownsville Texas, this event saw the racial injustice of African American soldiers, and the “dishonorable” discharge of 167 men of the 25th Infantry Regiment. This caused outrage but was long forgotten by history until 1970, when historian John D. Weaver published a book titled “The Brownsville Raid”. His investigations concluded that the accused members of the 25th Infantry Regiment were innocent.
The stolen valor act is about lying about having military medals and the supreme made it illegal in 2012. People were claiming that they were in the military to get money and properties. I think it is a really good thing that there is a law in place for this. John Abel was charged with robbing a bank with two other men. In order to distract Respondents witness the prosecution offered testimony that he and the witness were part of a prison gang that promoted perjury on the of fellow gang members..
I am writing to you to address the Lockhart v. United States case. The issue being tried is, whether or not the mandatory minimum should apply to Lockhart because his previous conviction was of sexual abuse against an adult not a minor or a ward. I choose this case because it is an example of the past affecting the future. In this case Lockhart’s prior crime is affecting how his case is being tried currently. My past has affected my future with every decision I make and things that have happened in my life.
The Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 in the case of Hernandez v. Texas was the start of a breakthrough for Mexican Americans in the United States. The case was brought to existence after Pete Hernandez was accused of murder in Jackson County, a small town called Edna, Texas. The special thing about this case that makes it significant was the jury that were including in this trial. It was said that a Mexican American hadn’t served on a jury in the county of Jackson in 25 years. With the help of a Mexican American lawyer, Gustavo Garcia, the case was brought to the highest court level and was beheld as a Violation of the constitution.
For example, in article, “It’s the truth: Americans Conflicted about lying”, by NBCnews.com, states that, “For, Harold Smith, it was worth a risk when he lied to his adult daughter about his health when undergoing treatment for a kidney tumor…”. I believe that he was right by lying to his adult daughter, he used lying to protect his daughter, he didn't want to hurt her. In this situation lying would be acceptable, he used it in the correct way, to protect himself and others. Additionally, in article, “It’s the truth: Americans conflicted about lying”, by NBCnews.com, states that, “why get her all traumatized? Says Smith, 64 of Pioneer, Calif.
The Federalists wanted a strong central government. The Anti- Federalists claims Constitution gives the central government too much power and, and they worried about the new constitution will not give them any rights. That the new system threatened freedom; Also, threatened the sovereignty of the states and personal liberties; failed to protect individual rights. Besides, some of famous peoples such as " Patrick Henry" and artists have came out against the Constitution. Although the anti-Federalists were unsuccessful in stopping the passage of the Constitution, their efforts have been responsible for the creation and implementation of the Bill of
Prior to annexing a territory, the American government still held immense power through the various legislations passed in the late 1800s. The Platt Amendment was utilized to prevent Cuba from entering into any agreements with foreign nations, and also granted the Americans the right to build naval stations on their soil. Executive officials in the American government began to determine themselves the supreme authority in matters regarding the recognition or restriction of
By lying Fields did not harm himself alone, but he damaged the integrity of those soldiers serving, or those who have served in the military. Fields claim of earning a purple heart, I believe, is also in violation of the stolen valor act, and not protected under the first amendment . Fields claim of earning a purple heart damages the sacredness of the award, and damages the reputation of those recipients of the purple heart. My verdict as a supreme court Justice would be to uphold Fields conviction of 1 year in
In the year 2006, the Stolen Valor Act made it illegal to make medals of Honor. The case brought forth to us describes issues brought about by this act. In United States v. Fields, Abel Fields attended a meeting where he proclaimed that he had military experience, and that he earned a Purple Heart. He had made false statements, and in turn was convicted, and had to pay a $1,000 fine. Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated.
Abel Fields was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act for falsely claiming he had received the Purple Heart. Fields has never served in the military and therefore has never received a military award. At his first trial, Fields was found guilty for violating the Stolen Valor Act and was sentenced to a fine. Fields then appealed his sentence and the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction citing that Fields’ First Amendment rights were violated. The government then appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision and the case was sent to the Supreme Court.
State vs. Mayfield Trial On December 27th, 1989, State Police Officer Edward Mayfield pulled over Donna Nugent to a shady area where he strangled her and threw her body off of a bridge. We don’t know why he pulled her over. He then proceeded to strangle her with a rope. I believe State Police Officer Edward Mayfield is guilty of murder in the first degree because he had and hid the murder weapon, pulling over specifically blonde women, and he changed the activity log.
There is no one name for the case of Frank Abagnale. He was tried in France, Sweden, Italy, and then finally the United States. Therefore, it is reasonable to call the case The United States versus Frank Abagnale. He was accused of bank fraud, identity fraud, and professional con artist. A great criminal always starts young.