Articles Tagged with “US Supreme Court”

Today marks the 56th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision in Hamilton v. Alabama[1]. Hamilton[2] stands for the simple proposition that the 14th amendment due process clause incorporates your sixth amendment right to counsel against the states, meaning you must be allowed to have a lawyer at your arraignment.

u-s-supreme-court-2-1210504-1-300x225
The Case

The case behind the Hamilton decision is stunning for the nature of the crime at the center of the case. In the mid 1950’s Mr. Hamilton was arrested and charged with Burglary with intent to Ravish which at the time was a capital offense. Mr. Hamilton, being indigent was unable to afford an attorney. This case occurred before the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright[3][4] which guaranteed indigent people the right to counsel. As such, Mr. Hamilton was not given an attorney, and at his arraignment Mr. Hamilton plead not guilty.

Today marks the 27th Anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case of Perry v. Louisiana[1]. Perry stands for the proposition that you cannot forcibly medicate an individual so they are competent to be executed.

u-s-supreme-court-building-washington-dc-1224328-300x221
The Case[2]

The case behind Perry is quite bizarre. Only the evening of July 17th, 1983 Michael Owen Perry entered the unlocked home of his cousins Randy Perry, and Brian LeBlane. Mr. Perry shot and killed both his cousins, before leaving the home, crossing the street and breaking into his parents’ home. Mr. Perry waited for his parents to return, and when they returned home along with their two-year-old grandson Anthony Bonin, Mr. Perry shot and killed all three. Mr. Perry then stole $3,000 worth of cash and fled. Oddly, police found a list of intended victims at the crime scene, with the list including Justice Sandra Day O’Conner[3] and musician Olivia Newton-John[4]. Neighbors and family members said that Mr. Perry had always been unstable, and he was obsessed with Oliva Newton-John’s performance in the movie Grease[5]. Two weeks later, Mr. Perry was arrested in Washington D.C just miles away from the Supreme Court[6].

Today marks the 98th anniversary of the controversial case of Abrams v. United States[1]. In Abrams[2], the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of five defendants under the Espionage Act of 1917. The Court expressly rejected the defendant’s argument that their first amendment rights had been violated by the Espionage Act. This case is particularly noteworthy because revered Justice Oliver Wendell Homes[3]; the author of the opinions which had originally upheld the Constitutionality of criminalizing free speech against the war effort in three prior Court cases, dissented against the majority.

washington-dc-6-1235114-300x202
The Case

The case behind Abrams was a product of a different time in American culture and history. On August 12, 1918, just three months before the end of fighting in WWI, Hyman Rosansky was arrested for throwing flyers out of the 4th floor of a hat factory. The flyers, one in English and one in Yiddish called for a general strike by workers, a reduction in the production of munitions being sent to aid White Army soldiers fighting Soviet forces in the Russian Revolution. Police arrested Mr. Rosansky for violating the Sedition Act of 1917, which criminalized the “willfully utter, print, write, or publish, any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of the Government of the United States, or willfully urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of the production of things necessary to the war efforts.”. Police interrogated Mr. Rosansky for weeks. With Mr. Rosansky’s help, police also arrested Mollie Steimer[4], Jacob Abrams, Hyman Lachowsky, Jacob Schwartz, Gabriel Prober, and Samuel Lipman. The group was all Russian, Jewish immigrants to America and avowed anarchist.

Today marks the 109th anniversary of the devastating Supreme Court case of Twining v. New Jersey[1]. Twining[2] was a landmark case which established a clear path of incorporating Constitutional rights against the state via the 14th amendment, while simultaneously rejecting the incorporation of the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination.

u-s-supreme-court-2-1210504-300x225
The Case[3]

The case behind this landmark decision was sadly all to common in this era of criminal justice. Mr. Albert C. Twining and Mr. David C. Cornell bank directors of the Monmouth Trust & Safe Deposit Company were both indicted on charges of bank fraud. At trial both men chose to not take the stand at trial. At that time in New Jersey the law allowed for a jury instruction which allowed the jury to make an adverse inference form a defendant choosing not to testify at trial[4]. This effectively meant that juries were instructed to find guilt from a defendant exercising their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. New Jersey was one of the few states that didn’t have a state constitution that allowed for the right against self-incrimination. Both men were found guilty and both men appealed arguing their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination had been violated by the New Jersey law.

Today marks the 13th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case of Leocal v. Ashcroft[1]. Leocal[2] stands for the proposition that DWI crimes which lack mens rea, or only require proving negligence are not “crimes of violence” which trigger deportation.

u-s-supreme-court-1-1221080-300x225
The Case

The case behind Leocal is relatively mundane. Josue Leocal a citizen of Haiti and lawful permanent resident of the United States since 1987 was arrested in November of 2000 for felony Driving Under the Influence (DUI)[3] and causing serious bodily injury. Mr. Leocal plead not guilty to both counts, but was found guilty of both offense and sentenced to two and a half years in jail. While in jail, in October 2001, Immigration and Naturalization Service began deportation proceedings began under section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The judge held that Mr. Leocal’s DUI was a “crime of violence”, and thus an aggravated felony which opened Mr. Leocal to deportation, denied Mr. Leocal’s application for relief, and ordered him deported to Haiti. Mr. Leocal appealed the ruling, and in August 2002 the Board of Immigration Appeals sustained the judge’s ruling and ordered Mr. Leocal deported. In November 2002, Mr. Leocal was deported to Haiti. From Hatit, Mr. Leocal appealed the ruling. However, in a 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion had held that a DUI was an aggravated felony, and as such the court had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted cert in 2004.

Today marks the 85th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court case of Powell v. Alabama[1]. Powell[2] is one of the cases in which the Supreme Court laid out the basic due process requirements of a fair trial in state courts including right to effective appointed counsel in capital offenses, fair time to prepare for trial, and fair hearing. This case proved to be a monumental move for the Supreme Court, which signaled a progressive shift to expanding constitutional rights for defendants in criminal trials.

u-s-supreme-court-roof-and-columns-1224326-300x199
The Case[3]

The case behind the monumental decision of the Supreme Court required a monumental remedy. On March 25th, 1931, a fight broke out aboard a freight train between a group of poor black and white youth who both had not paid for the ride. All but one of the white youths was thrown from the train just over the Alabama state line, and these boys promptly reported the incident to local law enforcement. The nine-black youths Charlie Weems, Ozie Powell, Clarence Norris, Olen Montgomery, Willie Roberson, Haywood Patterson[4], Andrew (Andy) Wright, Leroy (Roy) Wright and Eugene Williams were detained when they reached the town of Scottsboro Alabama[5].

Today marks the 12th anniversary of the decision in Gonzales v. Raich, a decision whose repercussions still resonate across the legal marijuana market. Following precedent, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause[1] of the Constitution allowed for the federal government to criminalize the private cultivation of marijuana, even if that cultivation was in compliance with state law.

iStock_000009135835_ExtraSmall-300x190
The Case

The facts of the case demonstrate federalism at work. In 1996, California ratified proposition 215 otherwise known as “The Compassionate Use act of 1996”. This act legalized the use, sale and cultivation of medical marijuana with a recommendation from a doctor. California had become the third state to legalize medical marijuana, and the first to legalize it via referendum.

Today marks the 48th anniversary of the decision in Leary v. United States, and often forgotten Supreme Court case from 1969 that effectively legalized marijuana on the federal level with the declaration that the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act violated the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution.

Supreme Court
The Case[1]

The facts behind the case are interesting to say the least. On December 20th 1965 Doctor Timothy Leary; a famous professor, psychologist, and political activist, left on a road trip from New York to the state of Yucatan in Mexico with his two adult children, and two others.

iStock_000009680929XSmall.jpgPolice officers cannot bring drug dogs onto a person’s property to search for evidence without first obtaining a warrant to conduct the search, according to a recent Supreme Court decision. Though this decision strengthens one’s fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches, one should still know how officers could find a constitutional exception to the warrant requirement, allowing police to search the home. Even with a warrant or warrant-exception, the constitution places certain limitations upon the police’s search of a suspect’s home, which the police must not exceed.

A common way police are able to search the home without a warrant is through consent of the homeowner. Consent acts as an exception to both the probable cause and warrant requirements of a search, thus one must be aware that, when she consents to a search, she is relieving the police of their duty to follow constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches. When requesting consent, the police are not obligated to tell the suspect he has the right to decline the police’s request. The police could even threaten the suspect in order to obtain consent, and such threats are lawful as long as the police can legally carry the threat out. For instance, a police officer could tell a homeowner if the homeowner doesn’t concede to a search, the officer may go to a magistrate judge to obtain a warrant for the search. However, if the threat to obtain consent is illegal for the police to follow through on, such as threatening to come back with drug dogs to conduct a warrantless search of the home, then the consent obtained would be invalid.

When a homeowner does decide to concede to a police search, he is able to limit the search to wherever he wants, such as conceding search of the living room, but not allowing search of the bedroom. The item or person the police are searching for can also limit the consent-based search. For example, if police get consent to search for an escaped prisoner, the police can only search where a person could be hiding like closets, but not drawers or small containers. However, if police obtain consent to search for marijuana, then police have free reign to search virtually everywhere in the house where marijuana could be hidden. A police officer may also get consent to search your home from another person who jointly controls the living area. If the other person does not actually jointly control the living area, but a reasonable officer would have (in good faith) believed the other person had joint control, then an officer could still obtain valid consent (to search the home) from the other person. In the circumstance where one homeowner objects to a search but another homeowner agrees to the search, a officer would have to yield to the objecting homeowner, and could not conduct the search without a warrant or warrant-exception besides consent. If you are involved in a criminal case where search or seizure is an issue, it is imperative that you contact a criminal defense attorney who can ensure that the courts will fully respect your fourth amendment rights.