More handpicked essays just for you.
Criminal justice system in the united states
Supreme court case study analysis 63 quizlet flashcards
Criminal justice court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The following case study of “Tomcick v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation & Correction” speaks of a woman, Tomcik, an inmate at a correctional institution. Tomcik noticed while institutionalized a small lump in her right breast. Tomcik efforts to seek medical care took many months and in the meantime her lump continued to grow. Each time she was treated the treatments were cursory. Tomcik was originally evaluated briefly on May 26, 1989 by a Dr. Evans.
Cedar Rapids v. Garrett F. Garret F., was a quadriplegic who was ventilator-dependent due to his spinal column being severed in a severe motorcycle accident when he was 4 years old. During the school day, he required a personal attendant within hearing distance to see to his health care needs. He required urinary bladder catheterization, suctioning of his tracheostomy, observation for respiratory distress, and other assistance. He attended regular classes in a typical school program and was successful academically.
On July 29, 2003 Detective Jason Leavitt was a part of a decoy operation with an undercover arrest team ; he was dressed on black jeans, a dirty short- sleeved flannel shirt on top of a dirty-t shirt, and a baseball cap to apart as a drunk homeless man . Detective Leavitt carried Twenty one-dollar bills in his breast pocket, to attract a thief. Leavitt was on the block of 200 Main St across from the Greyhound station. The Appellant Richard Miller approached Detective Leavitt on this very street to ask him for money. Detective Leavitt told Miller he was not going to give him an money, Leavitt testified that the appellant put his arm around him and asked him to go get a drink.
Title: Chimel v. California Date/Court: United States Supreme Court, 1969 Facts: This case deals with Ted Chimel, who they suspected robbed a local coin shop. On September 13, 1965, several officers from Santa Ana came to the home of Chimel with an arrest warrant for his expected involvement in the burglary. The officers arrived at the door and identified themselves to Chimel’s wife and asked if they could come into the home, she agreed and showed them into the house. While in the house the officers waited 10-15 minutes until Chimel came home from work.
In the case of Tomcik vs. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, Janet Tomcik, the plaintiff, blamed the loss of her right breast on the fact that there was a major delay in her examination and treatment of her tumor. This could be known as nonfeasance negligence, which is the “failure to act when there is a duty to act,” (Pozgar, 2016). The corrections department, or in this case, the defendant, claimed that Tomcik`s cancer was already so developed, that her breast would have been removed regardless of when her official checkup and treatment took place. One stakeholder in this case is Janet Tomcik. She is the patient who not only lost her breast, but endured “physical pain, [and] emotional suffering,” (Tomcik, 1991).
Worcester v. Georgia By Sydney Stephenson Worcester v. Georgia is a case that impacted tribal sovereignty in the United States and the amount of power the state had over native American territories. Samuel Worcester was a minister affiliated with the ABCFM (American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions). In 1827 the board sent Worcester to join its Cherokee mission in Georgia. Upon his arrival, Worcester began working with Elias Boudinot, the editor of the Cherokee Phoenix (the first Native American newspaper in the United States) to translate religious text into the Cherokee language. Over time Worcester became a close friend of the Cherokee leaders and advised them about their political and legal rights under the Constitution and federal-Cherokee treaties.
The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?
Case Identification: 428 U.S. 153; 96 S. Ct. 2909; 49 L. Ed. 2d 859; No. 74-6257; Gregg v. Georgia. It was argued on March 31, 1976 and was decided on July 2, 1976. Facts: The defendant, Troy Gregg, sought the review of the decision from the Supreme Court of Georgia, which affirmed the opinion that the death penalty is not a violation of the eighth and fourteenth amendments. Gregg was charged with armed robbery and murder.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, in 1969, problems arose when Brandenburg, a leader of a Klu Klux Klan, held a KKK meeting in an Ohio farm. In the convention Brandenburg was filmed as he complained about the United States suppressing the white race. For the most part the film was inaudible but it was certain that Brandenburg had stated some demeaning opinions on African Americans and Jews. In the assembly some Klu Klux Klan members were holding weapons. Though Brandenburg was not, he made it clear that violence would not take place unless it was necessary.
Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp 's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court where she lost the case in fighting her for first amendment rights. Then, Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search of the officers and got her case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where she won. At the time of the case, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts, meaning that the evidence found in Mapp’s home was used against her in the Ohio court, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
I A. B. Cantwell v Connecticut (1940) D. Jesse Cantwell and his son going door to door in their neighborhood talking badly to people about the religion of catholicism which lead to two people becoming angry. This leads to the Cantwells being arrested for breaking a local ordinance that requires a permit for solicitation and also for encouraging an infraction of the peace E. Were the Cantwells first amendment free speech rights violated when they were religious views were suppressed and did they encourage an infraction of the peace or not. F.The court ruled that you could restrict general solicitation but you could not put limitation based on religion and that if you did so it would be trying to silence someone's views.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. is a Supreme Court case that made its way through the three levels of courts in 1985. The entire dilemma began one day when two girls were caught smoking in a school bathroom by a teacher. The teacher immediately took the two to the vice principal’s office, where they were questioned. One of the girls admitted to smoking, but the other, the girl known as T.L.O., denied it. The principal, Theodore Choplick, seized T.L.O.’s purse and began to rummage through it.
41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.
Terry v. Ohio (1968) This decision established that police officers may stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity. This decision has been important in shaping police practices and has been used to justify the use of stop-and-frisk tactics in certain situations. Terry v. Ohio (1968) is an important case in the history of criminal law in the United States. The case dealt with the issue of whether police officers can stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in criminal activity.
Wardlaw and the two Marshals ended up giving different stories, but the story that was used under law was Wardlaw’s story. The court ended up taking the Marshals’ side in this case as they felt the use of force was not excessive (“William C. Wardlaw, Appellant, v. William R. Pickett, Deputy United States Marshal, Et Al., Appellees, 1 F.3d 1297 (D.C. Cir. 1993)”). Wardlaw’s story stated that on June 7, 1988, Him and a man named John Heid was watching a court hearing. When the judge of the hearing announced a recess, a Marshal, named Donald
