Home Famous Trials

Famous Trials

The Case Profile of the West Memphis 3 Trial

The Case Profile of the West Memphis 3 TrialThe Background of the West Memphis 3 Trial (1994)

The West Memphis 3 trial involved the murder of 3 boys whose bodies were found mutilated and sexually assaulted in the wooded areas called ‘Robin Hood Hills’ in West Memphis, Arkansas. The 3 suspects – who were later convicted of the murders – were assumed to be suspected as a result of their penchant for listening to music deemed to be satanic in nature, as well as their donning of black clothing. Within the investigations, rampant claims of police coercion, subjectivity, the use of spectral evidence, forced confessions, and the denial of protocol expressed within the 8th Amendment to the Constitution – an Amendment that ensures the right to a fair hearing:

Spectral evidence is regarded as presumed and alleged evidence citing the presence of spirits considered to be notorious, evil, and harmful in nature; while wholly dissolved subsequent to scientific development, the notion of spectral evidence was considered to be a standard legal instrument in conjunction with the Salem Witch Trials

The Case Profile of the West Memphis 3 Trial

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘The West Memphis 3 Trial’:

Date of the Trial: 1993

Legal Classification: Criminal Law; the legal field that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity that may have occurred conducted in both public or private sectors; with regard to a criminal charge, the intent, motive, and behavior implemented by the perpetrator is taken into consideration both upon review as well as prior to sentencing

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by a collective group of parents against West Memphis 3 within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The defendants were accused of first degree murder, which is classified as the premeditated, purposeful, illegal, and deliberate termination a life – or lives – belonging to the victims of the West Memphis 3 trial

The defendants were accused of first degree murder, which is classified as the premeditated, purposeful, illegal, and deliberate termination a life – or lives – belonging to the victims; however, the nature of the victims varied with regard to the expressed intent exhibited by the West Memphis 3

The defendants were accused of sexual assault, which is an offense involving  illicit, indecent, and illegal sexual activity taking place; within the sexual assault charges, the West Memphis 3 were accused of raping the 3 victims – defined as the  illegal and unlawful sexual intercourse without the existence of expressed consent between the parties involved

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Jessie Misskelley was found guilty on February 5th, 1994 and sentenced to life imprisonment; Jason Baldwin was found guilty on March 19th, 1994 and sentenced to life imprisonment – Damien Echols was found guilty and sentenced to death on March 19th, 1994

Legal Venue of the West Memphis 3 Trial: The Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the West Memphis 3 trial:

Stevie Branch, Christopher Byers, Michael Moore (victims)

Jessie Misskelley, Jason Baldwin (convicted of murder)

Damien Echols (convicted of murder and conspiracy)

Chris Morgan, Brian Holland (suspects arraigned due to lack of evidence)

Bryn Ridge (investigating officer)

Richard Ofshe (psychiatrist; expert witness with regard to the analysis of confessions)

Vicki Hutcheson (witness who later recanted her testimony, citing police coercion)

John Mark Byers (step father of Christopher Byers suspected of the murder following the trial)

Verdict Delivered: The 3 suspects, Jessie Misskelley, Jason Baldwin, and Damien Echols, were all found guilty of murder

Associated Legislation with regard to the West Memphis 3 Trial: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the West Memphis 3 trial:

In 2007, the defense team filed a writ with regard to Habeas Corpus – the legal protocol required subsequent to an arrest, which entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – a claim was made that Damien Echols was denied sufficient means of Habeas Corpus

Upon his arrest, the defense attorneys claimed that Jessie Misskelley was denied his right to the standard protocol of criminal apprehension and investigation latent within the Miranda Rights ; the upholding of these rights must be upheld by any and all arresting officers – the Miranda Rights are included the legislative statutes expressed in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution

Worcester v. Georgia

Worcester v. GeorgiaThe Background of Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

Legislative statutes in the State of Georgia – subsequent to an agreement between the Tribal Council of the Cherokee Nations and the State of Government of Georgia – instituted a prohibition of non-Native Americans from residing in Native American Territories; a stipulation within this statute allowed only non-Native Americans with expressed governmental in the form of licenses to be permitted to reside in these territories.

Missionary Samuel A. Worcester, along with his wife and 5 fellow missionaries, refused to vacate from areas deemed as ‘Indian Territories’; furthermore, the missionaries abstained from applying for a license for residence due to the fact that they feared that they would be denied. As a result of their collective refusal, the military entered the Native American Territories and apprehended Worcester and the 6 other individuals. Subsequent to his arrest, Worcester appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court.

The Case Profile of Worcester v. Georgia

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Worcester v. Georgia’:

Date of the Trial: February 20th, 1832

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Samuel A. Worcester against the State of Georgia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Worcester claimed that his removal was a violation of his constitutional rights, as the State government of Georgia did not maintain the jurisdiction to enforce legislation within Native American Territories

United States Reports Case Number: 31 U.S. 515

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 3rd, 1832

Legal Venue of Worcester v. Georgia: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Worcester v. Georgia case:

Samuel A. Worcester; Plaintiff – Worcester v. Georgia

The State of Georgia; Defendant – Worcester v. Georgia

Verdict Delivered: John Marshall ruled in favor of Worcester, validating Worcester’s claim that the State government of Georgia was unable to enact legislation within areas that were not within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia – Marshall continued by stating that the interactions between the Cherokee and the State of Georgia should be approached as international relations

Associated Legislation with regard to Worcester v. Georgia: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Worcester v. Georgia trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

The Case Profile of Bernard Madoff

The Case Profile of Bernard MadoffWho is Bernard Madoff?

Bernard Madoff, also known as Bernie Madoff, is an individual who was convicted of what is presumed to be the largest and most financially-devastating financial crimes within the history of the United States. Upon the investigation of his crimes in addition to his subsequent trial, Bernard Madoff was estimated to have caused the loss of upwards of $18 billion due his criminal actions. The Bernie Madoff financial fraud and Ponzi scheme was believed to have been enacted in the early 1990s and ended on December 11th, 2008 at the time of his arrest:

The Ponzi Scheme undertaken by Bernard Madoff was a fraudulent operation in which investment capital is unlawfully distributed in a deceptive manner as a means to project the illusion of financial gains resulting from investment endeavors

The investment capital of newer clients was unlawfully apportioned to existing clients with the hopes of instilling confidence in the Bernie Madoff – the newer client’s were deceived that their investment capital was invested and subsequently lost, although it had never been invested at all

The Case Profile of Bernard Madoff

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of Bernard Madoff, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: Bernard Madoff was born on April 29th, 1938 in Queens, New York

Residence: Manhattan, New York

Date of the Crime: 1990s to December 2008

Criminal Charges: The crimes of which Madoff were convicted were financial in nature, including securities fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, conspiracy, solicitation, and investment fraud

Legal Classification: The following classifications criminal activity were attributed to Bernard Madoff

Criminal Law; a legal specialty that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors

Financial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on legislation applicable to the activity, exchange, and the circulation of monies or currency

Commercial Law; a legal specialty that focuses on the protection of consumers engaging in commercial activity, which includes the investigation of legality and ethics latent within all existing commercial operations

Date of the Trial: March of 2009

Victims:  Bernard Madoff was charged for the defrauding of hundreds of victims, and deemed responsible for the estimated loss of over $18 billion; in addition, Bernard Madoff was convicted of 11 separate felonies – although Madoff claimed that he had begun this activity in the 1990s, investigators suspect that he may have undergone his Ponzi Scheme as early as the 1970s

Associated Legislation and Statues with regard to the Bernard Madoff Case: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Bernard Madoff trial:

The Securities and Exchanges Commission (SEC) was responsible for the investigation of the illegal activity undertaken by Bernie Madoff; the regulatory body mandated by the Federal government of the United States employed to investigate and regulate matters involving financial and investment activity of the public, commercial market

Verdict Delivered: Bernie Madoff was found guilty of fraud

Punishment and Conviction: Bernard Madoff was sentenced to ‘natural life’ incarceration in the Butner Federal Correctional Facility, which is in North Carolina – he received a term of 150 years

Gibbons v. Ogden

Gibbons v. OgdenThe Background of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

In 1824, the State Government of New York State allowed for 2 men – Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston – to maintain the authority to regulate the waterways existing between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibson, a facilitator of a commercial steamboat operation existing between New York and New Jersey, was permitted to operate his steamboats on an interstate basis. Aaron Ogden maintained that due to the fact that Gibbons’ actions occurred on an interstate level, the jurisdiction of regulation of Gibbons was under the jurisdiction of the Federal government in lieu of the State Government of New York State; Ogden insisted that Gibbons’ license be revoked. Gibbons’ attorney explained that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution expressed that the Federal government only be permitted to regulate commercial activity existing on an interstate basis that involves ‘Several’ states:

The Commerce Clause within the United States’ Constitution explains that the regulation and oversight of trade involving nations outside of the United States, Native American Tribes, and ‘Several’ States will be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government

The Case Profile of Gibbons v. Ogden

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gibbons v. Ogden’:

Date of the Trial: February 5th, 1824

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Thomas Gibbons against Aaron Ogden within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gibbons explained that Ogden’s claims were unconstitutional due to the fact that the participation of 2 States neither fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the classification of ‘several’

United States Reports Case Number: 22 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 2nd, 1824

Legal Venue of Gibbons v. Ogden: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gibbons v. Ogden case:

Thomas Gibbons; Plaintiff – Gibbons v. Ogden

Aaron Ogden; Defendant – Gibbons v. Ogden

Verdict Delivered: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ogden, explaining that the Federal Government was eligible for any nature of jurisdiction and regulation of interstate activity – regardless of the number of participatory States – as a result of the Supremacy Clause. This ruling also solidified the term ‘several’ to imply any nature of interstate commerce.

Associated Legislation with regard to Gibbons v. Ogden: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gibbons v. Ogden trial:

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States

Baker v. Carr

Baker v. CarrThe Background of Baker v. Carr (1961)

Within the legislation expressed in the Tennessee State Constitution –enacted in 1901 – required that the districts of Tennessee be reformulated every 10 years in order to accommodate an accurate portrayal of the population with regard to each respective jurisdiction. Charles Baker explained that the State had refused to remap the districts in accordance to the precepts set forth within the applicable legislature. Although the State of Tennessee maintained that the adherence to the measures of districts was political in nature, Baker contended that the establishment of districts was a legislative matter:

The nature of legal issues rooted in politics in contrast with those rooted in legislature were called into question with regard to the analysis of Baker’s complaint; Baker brought forth the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution, which mandated the Federal government’s eligibility to maintain jurisdiction over State legislation

The Case Profile of Baker v. Carr

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Baker v. Carr’:

Date of the Trial: October 9th, 1961

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Charles W. Baker against Joe C. Carr – the appointed representative of the State of Tennessee – within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Baker maintained that the legislation expressed in the State of Tennessee’s Constitution in 1901 with regard to the establishment of districts was in direct violation of 14th Amendment Rights entitled to citizens of the United States

United States Reports Case Number: 369 U.S. 186

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 26th, 1962

Legal Venue of Baker v. Carr: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Baker v. Carr case:

Charles W. Baker; Plaintiff – Baker v. Carr

Joe C. Carr; Defendant – Baker v. Carr

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court claimed that the State of Tennessee’s refusal to adhere to the expressed legislation of remapping districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires that every individual citizen of the United States be entitled to equal, uniform, and unbiased protection and preservation with regard to the pursuit of happiness.

Associated Legislation with regard to Baker v. Carr: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Baker v. Carr trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States

Gitlow v. New York

Gitlow v. New YorkThe Background of Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The case of Gitlow v. New York was a trial that took place in 1925 with regard to the application of the tenets and precepts expressed within the Constitution of the United States – as well as those expressed within the Amendments; this trial addressed both the Federal Government’s – as well as the individual States’ – responsibility to uphold civil liberties expressed within the Consitution. Benjamin Gitlow, who was considered to be both a Socialist – as well as a potential anarchist threat to the United States government, was charged with a violating ‘Anti-Anarchist’ legislature upheld by the State of New York; prior to his arrest, Gitlow had been charged with releasing publications presumed to be latent with Anti-American rhetoric. Subsequent to his initial conviction, Benjamin Gitlow appealed his conviction, stating that his conviction was in direct violation of both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights expressed in the Constitution; the appeal hearing became what is now considered ‘Gitlow v. New York’.

The Case Profile of Gitlow v. New York

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gitlow v. New York’:

Date of the Trial: November 23rd, 1923

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by %%% against %%%%

Although Gitlow was convicted of violating applicable legislation enacted within the State of New York prohibiting expression considered to be ‘Anti American’, Gitlow appealed his conviction accusing the State of New York of violating his Constitutional rights

United States Reports Case Number: 268 U.S. 652

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 8th, 1925

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: William H. Taft

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gitlow v. New York case:

Benjamin Gitlow – the plaintiff – was an social activist and author

The State of New York – the defendant – was cited for a violation of Gitlow’s Constitutional rights

Verdict Delivered: Benjamin Gitlow remained guilty of his crimes, but the Supreme Court mandated that individual State governments were unable to deny their residents the civil and human rights expressed within the Constitution of the United States

Associated Legislation with regard to Gitlow v. New York: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gitlow v. New York trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution ensures that all citizens of the United States are afforded the freedom of speech; this statute also includes the freedom to express oneself in accordance to accepted and undertaken legislation and legality – this statute includes the freedom to join and participate in activities and engagements upon choosing to do so without threat or duress

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

The Nuremberg Trials and the Start of International Law

The Nuremberg Trials and the Start of International LawWhat were the Nuremberg Trials?

The Nuremberg trials were a series of international trials that were held in the German city of Nuremberg. The trials, which were of a criminal nature, took place in the wake of the Second World War. During the Nuremberg trials, the Allied Forces aimed to bring the architects of the Nazi regime to legal justice; the Allied forces, through the Nuremberg trials, tried numerous individuals who were aligned with the Nazi war machine. Although these efforts were applauded and deemed as noble, many of the premier participants in the Nazi regime were absent from the Nuremberg trials—many Nazis evaded capture by fleeing to other countries.

In the early months of 1943, the Allied forces agreed that some form of tribunal must be developed and held after the war to bring the Nazis to justice. The Allied forces developed and delivered this tribunal to hold the Nazis accountable for their atrocious war crimes—which were viewed as going far and beyond the norm expected in a war.

The Nuremberg trials were viewed as a benchmark and fundamental buttress for international law; the Nuremberg trials were a radical development of the International criminal justice system that ultimately played a principal role in the drafting of documents—such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Nuremberg Trials Explained:

The Nuremberg trials opened in 1945, as cases were brought against 22 prominent members of the Nazi regime. 12 of these 22 cases resulted in the delivery of death sentences for egregious violations of basic human rights. The Nuremberg trials, due to the precedent set and the overall viciousness of the Nazi regime, cited the Nuremberg laws, which were in essence the framework of the Nazi regime’s brutal actions.

In the first year of the Nuremberg trials, the stand was taken by individuals who played a fundamental part in creating and implementing the ideology of the Nazi regime. Through 1949, the Nuremeberg trials effectively brought lesser Nazi regime members to justice. The Nuremberg laws, when implemented in the Nuremberg trials, established volumes of case materials which would be ultimately used as precedents in future cases that involved blatant violations of human rights. The Nuremberg trials were implemented by Britain, the United States, Russia and France.

The Nuremberg Laws:

The Nuremberg laws were a series of anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany that were introduced during the Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi party. The Nuremberg laws classified individuals based on their lineage; those with four German grandparents were referred to as German or possessing “kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewsih grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was referred to as a Mischling or a crossbreed of “mixed blood”. The Nuremberg laws deprived Jewish people of receiving German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Germans and those individuals who were of Jewish decent.

The Nuremberg laws also placed a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as Jewish and non-Jewish Germans. In addition, the Nuremberg laws prevented Jewish people from participating in German civic life.

Terrorism and the World Trade Center Bombing

Terrorism and the World Trade Center BombingWhat is an Act of Terror?

An act of terrorism refers to a systematic and diabolical use of terror as a means of coercion. Granted, there is no universally criminal law definition of terrorism; however, common characteristics of a terrorist act will incorporate the institution or delivery of violent acts, which are intended to precipitate fear on a given society or nation. A terrorist act is typically carried out for a political, ideological or religious goal; terrorists deliberately target and subsequently perpetuate violence without regard as to the safety of civilians in hopes of forcefully instilling an ideological principle.

A terrorist organization, to achieve their intended goals, will use violence to augment fear in a given society; violent acts, when delivered to a society at random, invariably make a community or nation fearful.  All terrorists–and their underlying terrorist organizations–will not align themselves with government organizations or formal government bodies.

Definitions of terrorism will always include acts of unlawful violence and war. That being said, any action that precipitates violence on a society and disrupts the harmony and general function of a sociological setting will be considered an act of terrorism.

The World Trade Center Bombing:

On February 26th, 1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. The World Trade Center bombing was sparked through the detonation of a 1,500 lb. urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced bomb. This device, as intended to topple the North Tower into the South Tower, effectively collapsing both buildings while killing thousands of people. Although this plan ultimately failed, the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 killed seven people and injured close to 1,100.

Who Planned the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993?

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was planned by an organization of extremists including, Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Mahmud Abouhalima, Nidal Ayyad, Ahma Ajaj and Abdul Rhman Yasin. This group received funding to enact the World Trade Center Bombing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed—Ramzi Yousef’s Uncle.

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was precipitated by three principle demands, laid out by the terrorists to local newspapers before the attack. Yousef, who mailed various letters to New York newspapers, stating that the United States must cut-off aid to Israel, put an end to the United States’ diplomatic relations Israel, and end all interference with any Middle Eastern affairs. Yousef, in these letters, stated that the World Trade Center bombing would merely be the first act of terrorism if his demands were not met. Furthermore, Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was a direct act of terrorism, but it was a justified action, because “the terrorism that Israel practices and America supports must be faced with a similar one.”

World Trade Center Bombing Investigation and Arrests:

Following the World Trade Center Bombing, numerous agents and technicians of the ATF, FBI and NYPD quickly responded on the scene. In the days following the World Trade Center Bombing, investigators combed through the rubble in the underground parking lot where they ultimately located a piece of the bomb’s transport vehicle. A vehicle identification number was eventually obtained, which led them to investigate where the rental truck came from. Investigators determined that the vehicle was rented by Mohammad Salameh—one of Yousef’s chief conspirators.

Salameh’s eventual arrest led police to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin; Yasin was eventually taken to FBI headquarters; however, he was released and escaped the following day back to Iraq—Yasin remains on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list.

In March of 1994, four men (Abouhalima, Ajaj, Salameh and Ayyad) were convicted of carrying out the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993. The charges included: conspiracy, the explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, Yousef and Eyad ismoil, were formally convicted for their role in the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Hamdi v. RumsfeldThe Background of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

In 2001, the Defendant Yaser Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan in the midst of the military operations undertaken by the United States in that region. Although Hamdi was a citizen of the United States, he was apprehended while fighting alongside the Taliban – a faction considered to be an enemy of the United States; upon his apprehension, Hamdi was extradited to the United States and detained at a military prison within the State of Virginia. Within his apprehension, Hamdi claimed that he was denied legal counsel; Hamdi also claimed that he was being unlawfully detained:

Article II of the United States’ Constitution implements the separation of administrative jurisdiction, specifically outline the prohibition from any branch of the Federal government from infringing upon the protection and preservation of national security

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Hamdi – the protocol regarding American citizens classified as enemies of the United States

The Case Profile of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hamdi v. Rumsfeld’:

Date of the Trial: April 28th, 2004

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi against Donald H. Rumsfeld – acting as the Secretary of Defense of the United States – within the trial brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Hamdi accused the Federal Government of violating his 8th Amendment Rights, which entitle American Citizens to subjugation to due process; this not only requires a fair hearing to take place – in addition to the provision of legal counsel – but also provides protection against unlawful detainment

United States Reports Case Number: 542 U.S. 507

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 2004

Legal Venue of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case:

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi; Plaintiff(s) – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Donald H. Rumsfeld; Defendant – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that his arrest had violated the Due Process Clause outlined within the Constitution; this clause is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm. The ruling stated that Hamdi would be entitled to a fair trial in accordance with the 8th Amendment

Associated Legislation with regard to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld trial:

Subsequent to an arrest, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

Arizona v. Gant

Arizona v. GantThe Background of Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested as a result of driving with a suspended license; he had parked his vehicle and was arrested while on the property of an acquaintance. Shortly after Gant was detained in a police vehicle, the Arizona Police enacted a search of his vehicle in which they discovered cocaine and a firearm; as a result of this search, Gant was not only charged with the operation of a motor vehicle without a license, but also with the possession of a firearm, the possession of cocaine, and the intent to distribute cocaine. Subsequent to his arrest, Gant cited the Arizona Police with undertaking an illegal search and seizure lacking probable cause – a violation of his 4th Amendment Rights.

New York v. Belton (1981) mandated an ideology with regard to the required protocol within an arrest process rooted within an ‘If Arrest, Then Search’ approach with regard to any or all compartments of the vehicle deemed to exist on the ‘passenger’s side’; in accordance to this ruling, the Arizona Police enacted their search of Gant’s vehicle

The Case Profile of Arizona v. Gant

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Arizona v. Gant’:

Date of the Trial: October 7th, 2008

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the State of Arizona against Rodney Joseph Gant within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police performed an illegal search of his property resulting from the absence of a search warrant; a search warrant is the expressed, legal permission for applicable – and approved – law enforcement agents to enter the personal, private property belonging to an individual with the intention of placing that individual under arrest

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police had acted in lieu of probable cause, defined as the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual

United States Reports Case Number: 556 U.S. __

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 21st, 2009

Legal Venue of Arizona v. Gant: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Arizona v. Gant case:

The State of Arizona; Plaintiff – Arizona v. Gant

Rodney Joseph Gant; Defendant – Arizona v. Gant

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gant stating that the police searches are only viewed as constitutional in the event that they result from sufficient probable cause with regard to evidence latent existing in conjunction with the reasoning for the search. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the police lacked sufficient evidence to suspect that Gant would be in violation of anything outside of the illegal operation of a motor vehicle, they overturned his conviction with regard to both the firearm and drug charges.

Associated Legislation with regard to Arizona v. Gant: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Arizona v. Gant trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

In the event that an individual is arrested, criminal law protocol within the United States maintains the innocence of that individual unless they are found guilty within a court of law or they have admitted guilt on their own accord

Rostker v. Goldberg

Mickie Most

Chisholm v. Georgia