Klopfer vs North Carolina In 1967, Peter Klopfer, was an African-American biology professor at the University of Duke in North Carolina. One evening, he was present at a nonviolent sit in; which lead to his arrest later on for trespassing. This incident lead him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 13.
In the case of Johnson v. Laverkin City, a married police officer was punished for having an affair with another married officer from another department while attending a training conference. Sharon Johnson was a police officer for the Laverkin City Police Department. While employed, Ms. Johnson separated from her husband and filed for divorce in 2003. Her husband reacted negatively by violating a protective order and threatening to kill himself and her. While dealing with the divorce, Ms. Johnson was sent to a police training conference and while she was there, she had an affair with another officer that was from a different department.
The defendants LAPD and NY Corrections appeal the District Court. Issue: The District Court dismissed all claims against NY Corrections and LAPD for lack of subject matters such as jurisdiction. The district Court also dismissed all federal claims against the defendants. Yes, the court made the right decision to dismiss the claims made by the defendants. Holding:
Dothard v. Rawlinson the facts in the case are listed below. Rawlinson was the plaintiff; she was a 22-year-old with some college training in correctional psychology and applied for a job as a prison counselor trainee in the state of Alabama. The current statute of Alabama required that the state correctional employees had to maintain a minimum weight of 120 pounds and to be the lowest height of 5' 2". The position of a prison counselor primary duty was to keep the security and to be able to have control over the inmates through a constant observation and supervision.
8. Principle of Law: The court states, the first of the City’s contentions is easily dismissed. The jury found that Bozeman had notice of the harassment, and it is well established that we must accept a jury’s factual finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. The City’s second claim—that as a matter of law Bozeman’s knowledge should not have been imputed to the City—poses a more significant question concerning the limits of potential liability under Title VII. This court has noted that “the type and extent of notice necessary to impose liability on an employer under Title VII are the subject of some uncertainty.”
• Per summons and complaint, plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims that he was walking on the sidewalk when MOS approached him and asked if he swallowed something. Plaintiff states that informed MOS that he had swallowed a piece of candy then MOS arrested him. Plaintiff states that MOS struck him in the face and body. Plaintiff states that he was taken to Lutheran Hospital.
The American legal system hears many cases relating to liability, but surprisingly, most of these cases concern the prosecutors within their own legal system. In the Supreme Court case Connick v. Thompson, a district attorney’s office denied liability for the extreme misconduct of its prosecutors. The Supreme Court decided that the D.A. office was not liable for the actions of their prosecutors because they did not have a pattern of Brady violations. Contrary to the decision in Connick v. Thompson, the D.A. office should have been held liable for the misconduct of its prosecutors. Brady violations appeared throughout the case, other cases of Brady violations in that D.A. office, and the office’s blatant neglect to properly train its prosecutors.
In the case of Black vs Usher Transport, the courts should rule in the favor of Black. This case involves a truck driver who can sue for loss of employment due to mishandled information and defamation of character. Black also was dealing with loss of salary and emotional distress because this caused an issue with him getting a job due to his job history. The reading in this case states that his drug test was read incorrectly by the office worker and that he lost his employment as a result of a positive drug screen. The misleading information had an impact on his future employment.
In deciding whether the employees acted within his given duties, the defendant need only show his actions fell within the normal duties of a security officer or his actions were necessary to determine the truth. The manner should only be determined to be unreasonable if the plaintiff can show excessive and aggressive physical contact. Accusatory commentary expressed during the course of the detention is immaterial. Godwin, 172 S.E.2d at 467, Tomblin v. S.S. Kresge Co., 207 S.E.2d 693, 693-97 (Ga. App. 1974), Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Fishel, 288 S.E.2d 21, 21-24 (Ga. App. 1981), Estes v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 360 S.E.2d 649, 652 (Ga. App.1987), Brown v. Super Discount Markets, Inc., 447 S.E.2d 839, 839-841 (Ga. App. 1996), Ye.v. Kroger, 556 S.E.2d 879, 879-81 (Ga. App.
I have given this investigation careful consideration due to Officer Noname’s length of service within the Spring Falls Police Department. Through the facts given and statements made by Officer Noname, I am requesting immediate termination of employment. By lying to investigating officials in his involvement with the misuse of department resources, Officer Noname has become untrustworthy and his credibility as an officer of the law has been brought into question. It is from this incident that if Officer Noname were to give testimony in a hearing, his credibility would be called upon due to his dishonesty during this investigation. In Brady v. Marland (1963) and Giglio v. United States (1972), the Supreme Court has imposed rulings that all exculpatory evidence must be disclosed and that the defendant has a right to learn of any incriminating and/or discrediting information pertaining to the witnesses against them and may result in impeachment of witness testimony.
“Shipp”). He was taken outside to the chants of the rest of the mob and was then marched to the Tennessee River, where he was thrown in (Pfeifer, “Historic”; “Shipp”). After waiting a couple minutes, Johnson was pulled up (Pfeifer, “Historic”). There were signs of life from Johnson, so the mob shot him (Pfeifer, “Historic”). His last words were: “God bless you all.
The opinion concerning the case that was accessible were the U.S Supreme Court opinions concerning Skilling’s appeal. Justice Ginsburg delivered the first opinion. He considered two questions when asserting his opinion. Did pretrial publicity and community prejudice, the trial was held in Texas where most employees hailed from, prevent Skilling from a fair trial and did the jury improperly convict Skilling of conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud? Judge Ginsberg answered no to both questions and held to the existing convictions but chose to partial vacate the honest-services fraud due to bribery and kickbacks not falling into the honest-services statute (Skilling VS United States, 2010).
Welsh vs. United States The Supreme Court case I will be writing about is Welsh vs. United States. Elliot Ashton Welsh II was directed by Selective Service to go to physical examination on March 27, 1964. Welsh filed a conscientious objector status form which meant he was requesting to be exempt from the war. On the form, he crossed out the words, “my religious training and,” making the statement state, “by reason of ---- belief, consequently opposed to participation in war in any form,” then he marked no to answer the question of him believing in a Supreme Being and attached a note explaining his personal beliefs. The Court of Appeals did make note of his beliefs being, “beliefs are held with the strength of more traditional religious convictions.”
Prosecutors were more concerned with who the defendants were and what they believed than which they might have done (ATF
The Criminal Justice system has placed an emphasis on three factors that may influence their legal decisions. This includes, biological and social factors related to the offenders historical background and the context where the crime took place. More importantly, legal decisions are primarily based on the facts of the crime itself. However, issues of legal responsibility in cases involving chromosomal deficiencies and gene abnormalities have sparked the biological debate once again in courtrooms. Conditions such as psychopathy and pedophilia are commonly associated with biological factors and put into question the individual’s culpability of such crime.