Case Analysis. Prosecutor’s Case Against James Earl Ray: The prosecutors have enough efficient evidence in establishing guilt against James Earl Ray concerning the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. First, James Earl Ray was in close enough vicinity of the Lorraine Hotel to successfully fire a clear shot to kill Dr. King from only a block away. The location of Bessie Brewer’s boarding house was in the perfect position of being only a block away, in making the kill shot that killed Dr. King. Second, The high-power rifle with a scope mounted on it was in a bundle with a couple beer cans, the receipt, as well as the binoculars, all had fingerprints that belonged to Ray on them.
A review of the events involving the North Charleston, S. Carolina Whitlee Jones murder case as it applies to the Tennessee “stand your ground” statute brings several factors into question. As indicated in the article, South Carolina’s law as does Tennessee’s states that a person having reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm can use deadly force on the unlawful intruder. However, this does not apply to a lawful resident or a person who has a legal right to be in the dwelling, business, or auto (Knapp, 2014). As Jones indicates she removes herself from the danger on several occasions, yet she continues to return, placing herself once again in position to receive serious injury or death from her boyfriend who is legally occupying the
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.
Name of Case: LaChance vs. Erickson Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court Parties and their roles:. LaChance, director, Office of Personnel Management petitioner; Erickson et al Responded Relevant facts: Federal employees made false statements to agency investigators with respect to their misbehavior. The legal issue(s) raised: The legal issue raised was that the respondents, federal employees were charged by their agencies because each of them made false statements to the agency investigators with respect to their misconduct.
You may have heard about the $150,000 shirt in 2004 that was owned by Alan Newsom. The shirt was one of the reasons for Newsom v. Albemarle case that went to court. The shirt Alan Newsom wore was from an NRA shooting sports camp. He wore the shirt to school in hopes of encouraging other students to go to the camp, but he was told to turn the shirt inside out for the rest of the day. Later that same day Alan wanted to take them to court.
The court cases Goldberg and Wheeler do not stand for the proposition that only welfare benefits for people in extreme circumstances are entitled to pre-termination hearings. However, this is one situation where cutting off benefits with little or no notice could affect the well-being of the family or person. Any programs that offer they type of assistance people rely on to survive could benefit from pre-termination hearings, not just the welfare program. Welfare is one of the main public assistance programs, although I think housing assistance and food stamps might fall into the welfare category, they are also in need of a pre-termination hearing. In the Goldberg and Wheeler cases, California and New York did not want to give anyone a hearing
In September of 1961, a woman from District of Columbia had an intruder break into her apartment. While the invader of the home was there, they had taken her wallet, and also raped the woman. During the investigation of the crime, the police had found some latent fingerprints in the apartment. The police then established and processed the prints. The prints were then connected back to 16 year old Morris A. Kent.
In the court case, Gil vs Whitford, the major concerns of this particular case was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, is to favor one party or class by manipulating the boundaries of those involved in the electoral constituent. This case first arose in the year 2011; in Wisconsin. In the state of Wisconsin, two republicans were elected in the states assembly and senate. Soon after that, the redirecting plan began to take place.
Mississippi v. Johnson 71 U.S. (4 Wall) 475 (1867) Facts A case involving After the civil war, Congress passed the Reconstructions Acts of 1867. President Johnson vetoes the legislation, but congress overrode his veto and the acts became federal law. In response, Mississippi sued President Johnson asking for an injunction to prohibit him from enforcing the laws. Mississippi argued that the president should not be and is not above the law.
James Chambers put forward a plan for Stuart and Kekwick to return north with a government-provided armed guard to see them past the difficulties at Attack Creek. The government prevaricated and quibbled about cost, personnel, and ultimate control of the expedition, but eventually agreed to contribute ten armed men and £2,500; and put Stuart in operational command. (In contrast, the Burke and Wills expedition had cost £9,000 to establish. That expedition had already reached the Darling River in northern New South Wales.)
The first case of the day that was heard by the Supreme Court on December 13th was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Lee Johnson, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, led a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas to protest Ronald Reagan’s reelection. During this protest, Mr. Johnson soaked an American flag in kerosene and proceed to burn it. Mr. Johnson was then arrested and charged for violating the Texas state law that prevented the desecration of a venerated object. The proceedings began with statements from the petitioners who claimed that precedent cases such as US v. O’Brien (1968), which deemed that the burning of draft cards was an invalid form of free speech, and Boos v. Barry (1988), which reinforced
In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
It’s a fun time seeing the animals at the zoo, but do the animals love living there? This is what Jack Hanna thought throughout the book Monkeys on the Interstate by John Stravinsky. Most people are in the zoo business not for the well being of the animals, but instead for the money. On the other hand jack Hanna's first priority is the animals.
After the shooting subsided, Mr. Johnson, wielding an assault rifle and a handgun, held the police off for hours in a parking garage, claiming — apparently falsely — to have planted explosives in the area, and threatening to kill more officers. In the end, the police killed him Friday morning with an explosive delivered by a remote-controlled robot, the Dallas police chief, David O. Brown,
Jabez Wilson is upset because he has just received notice that the Red-Headed League has been disbanded. He was being employed there because his exceptionally brilliant red hair supposedly made him the ideal candidate for membership in what was represented as a sort of fraternal organization founded by a wealthy man for the purpose of benefiting red-headed men. Wilson was getting generously paid for simply copying articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica. He is apparently hoping that Sherlock Holmes could find out why the League had been disbanded without advance notice and whether it might reopen again, or whether it has moved to a different location.
