ipl-logo

Case Brief Of Kent V. US

839 Words4 Pages

Kent v. United States
383 US 541 (1966)

PROCEDURAL FACTS

The defendant, Morris Kent Jr., was arrested by authorities under the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia under charges of housebreaking, robbery, and rape. The defendant was subject to exclusive jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court as he was 16 at the time. Juvenile court jurisdiction was waived and Kent was sent to trial under the regular procedure of the District Court. The defendant was convicted under the District Court of the District of Columbia on six counts of robbery and housebreaking but was acquitted of the rape charges by plea of insanity. Kent was convicted and sentences to 30-90 years in prison. The defendant appealed his conviction to the United States …show more content…

was arrested and interrogated by police under circumstances pertaining to robbery, housebreaking, and rape. During his interrogation, in which he lacked an appropriate legal counsel, he admitted his involvement and the Juvenile Court ordered a waiver for the defendant to be prosecuted under the District Court of the District of Columbia as an adult. Kent moved to dismiss the waiver as he claimed a “full investigation” had not been conducted as required, but the District Court dismissed his claim. Kent was convicted on six counts of robbery and housebreaking, but was acquitted of two counts of rape with justification of insanity. Kent appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision by the District Court and maintained that the waiver was valid. The case then reached the Supreme Court as he felt his rights protected by Fifth Amendment of the United States were …show more content…

The Supreme Court utilized the Fifth Amendment of the United States as reference since it lacked the adequate regard for due process as protected under the law. The Fifth Amendment of the United States specifically voices that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. The defendant, Kent, stated that the procedures leading up to the District Court trail were unjust as he lacked a proper hearing, assistance of counsel, and proceeded without a statement of reason regarding the waiver. Because of the lack of these important steps, the Court believed the defendant was being deprived of his rights without the due process of law. These key aspects would not go unnoticed in the case of an

Show More
Related
620 Words | 3 Pages

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

Read More
856 Words | 4 Pages

Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial’s decision to not allow him a lawyer violated his constitutional

Read More
840 Words | 4 Pages

The verdict was not found to be guilty with the counts of rape due to reason of insanity. Morris Kent was sentenced 30 to 90 years in prison and also some time in Saint Elizabeth's Hospital. Kent’s lawyer believed that the investigation was not thoroughly completed and that the indictment should be dismissed. Due to the findings of Kent’s mental issues they concluded that the waive was inappropriate. He said that Kent was denied his constitutional rights due to the fact he was a minor.

Read More
688 Words | 3 Pages

Case Citation: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Parties: Ernesto Miranda, Plaintiff/ Appellant State of Arizona, Defendant/ Appellee Facts: This case represents the consolidation of four different cases, in which an accused individual confessed to a crime after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during the interrogation. The first case resolved Ernesto Miranda who was arrested and charged with kidnap and rape. He confesses and signed a written statement after a two-hour interrogation.

Read More
860 Words | 4 Pages

He believed that it was unconstitutional to get an increased sentence based on the evidence that was given. His argument was that according to the due process clause it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury. He claimed it wasn’t constitutional for a judge to make that ruling just based on the evidence presented to him. The main question of this case was whether the fourth amendment requires that an improved maximum prison term for an offense of ten to twenty years be proven with facts beyond the reasonable

Read More
589 Words | 3 Pages

When he appeared in his state court, he did not have a lawyer due to lack of funds. His request for the state to appoint him one was denied, and he was forced to represent himself. He was found guilty by the court and sentenced to five years in prison. Later he filed a habeas corpus petition, stating that his constitutionally guaranteed rights to be appointed counsel and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. This request was also denied.

Read More
1989 Words | 8 Pages

Smith, Petitioner V. Thompson, Respondent Case Number: OH 5647-32 Facts: This appeal arises out of a post-judgment ruling by the trial court on the issue of whether Mr. John Smith stole Ms. Agnes Thompson’s mail in order to commit identity fraud. The facts which give rise to this matter are as follows: Agnes Thompson, 74 year old, accused John Smith of stealing her mail and opening several accounts using her personal information and social security number. Mr. Smith allegedly stole Ms. Thompson’s mail in order to commit identity fraud; subsequently, the police arrested Mr. Smith was arrested in June of 2015. Later, the Federal District Court in Toledo tried Mr. Smith in August of 2015.

Read More
278 Words | 2 Pages

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.

Read More
851 Words | 4 Pages

On January 15, 1963, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gideon v. Wainwright. Abe Fortas, a Washington, D.C., attorney, and future Supreme Court justice, represented Gideon for free before the high court. He eschewed the safer argument that Gideon was a special case because he had only had an eighth-grade education level. Instead, Fortas asserted that no defendant, however competent or well educated, could provide an adequate self-defense against the state and that the U.S. Constitution ensured legal representation to all defendants charged with felonies. Two months later the court unanimously ruled that the denial of an attorney violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees due process.

Read More
1445 Words | 6 Pages

He was listed as a respondent to the challenge. At first the court case went through a three judge district court where it ruled that the law was constitutional. It was then appealed to the supreme court where they accepted the case. The supreme court ruled in an unanimous 8-0 decision that the law was unconstitutional.

Read More
968 Words | 4 Pages

The new precedent used the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all Americans regardless of state laws, to expand the right to counsel for all Americans. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at the federal level, but this new precedent applied to the state level. The Supreme Court decision was clearly uncontroversial because it was an unanimous decision: 9-0 majority (Oyez). All the Justices believed the Constitution placed a high importance on the right to a proper defense for the accused, as stated in the Sixth Amendment, and that it was unconstitutional for a court to deny proper defense for anyone charged. “The Constitution guarantees the right to counsel as a protection of due process” (Oyez), which does not limit due process just to those who can afford it, but rather all

Read More
265 Words | 2 Pages

On July 14, 2002 Defendant Jackson decided to break into victim home. The victim went out for about an hour on the morning and returned home to find defendant in his room. The victim threw his keys at defendant, and defendant ran and obnubilated in a closet. The victim pulled on the closet door, but defendant was prehending the doorknob on the inside. Defendant then relinquished the doorknob and sprang from the closet; the victim prehended him and they fell together onto the bed, breaking it.

Read More
762 Words | 4 Pages

In the Supreme Courts examination, they assessed whether or not the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extended to felony defendant in state courts (Oyez,

Read More
420 Words | 2 Pages

This simple phrase gave life to thousands of cases in our local, state and federal courts. The fact is our fifth and fourteenth amendment gave us Americans' life through the judicial system and goes all the way up to our Supreme Court. It is very important to understand the differences between substantial due process and procedural due process. Both are important to

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.

Read More

More about Case Brief Of Kent V. US

Related Topics

Open Document