Who is Jack Abramoff?

Jack Abramoff is an individual considered to be both an entrepreneur and lobbyist who undertook relations with a wide variety of Congressmen in the United States, such as Bob Ney, J. Steven Griles, and David Safavian; furthermore, Jack Abramoff retained his seat as the Chairman for the College Republican National Committee in the early 1980s. Jack Abramoff’s political ties are presumed to be responsible for his criminal activity, which involved a multitude of political-based corruption and fraud. Although Jack Abramoff was accused of a variety of fraudulent criminal activity, perhaps the most prominent was both his participation and masterminding of fraudulent conspiracy involving the misappropriation of over $85 million in illicit earnings with regard to Native American Gaming Institutions and Casinos:

Jack Abramoff, who acted as a lobbyist for the Native American Gaming Industry, participated in the receipt of illicit and unethical donations and bribes with regard to serving as a proponent for the inception of gaming facilities

Jack Abramoff also enacted a scheme in which millions of dollars were usurped from interest-based earnings rendered from the Native American Gaming Institutions for which he had purportedly served as a lobbyist

The Case Profile of Jack Abramoff

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

Date of Birth: Jack Abramoff was born on February 28th, 1958

Date of the Crime: Jack Abramoff’s many crimes – including lobbyist scandals involving Native American Gaming Institutions and Guam – took place between the 1980s and 2002 upon his apprehension

Criminal Charges: Jack Abramoff was found guilty of the following Financial Fraud:

Conspiracy; the involvement and participation of two or more individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to commit a crime; an individual charged with conspiracy does not necessarily need to be at the scene of the crime to be found guilty

Money Laundering; the deceptive presentation of a source of income in order to conceal its origin

Legal Classification: The domain of both Financial Law and Administrative Law:

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

Administrative Law; the legal field in which the interactions between the Federal Government and its citizens are regulated and subject to judicial review and oversight

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

Date of the Trial: March of 2006

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Jack Abramoff; in addition, these case details were made mention within Jack Abramoff’s criminal trial:

In addition to Jack Abramoff, a variety of accomplices were indicted with regard to their participation

Jack Abramoff was convicted of Tax Fraud, which is a type of fraud conducted by Jack Abramoff in which illegal, unlawful, and fraudulent activity was undertaken in order to avoid the payment of taxes

Verdict Delivered: Jack Abramoff was found guilty on November 15th, 2006

Punishment and Conviction: Jack Abramoff was sentenced to 4 years in a minimum security prison camp in Cumberland Maryland; he was released from prison on December 10th, 2010

The Background of Near v. Minnesota (1931)

J.M. Near, a Minnesota resident who undertook the publishing of his newspaper ‘The Saturday Press’ was arrested as a result of the content of his publication, which was presumed to be comprised of racist, prejudiced, and objectionable hate-speech; as a result, he was arrested in accordance with his violation of The Minnesota Gag Law of 1925, which was an ordinance passed prohibiting media considered to serve as potential to cause public disturbance and civil disorder; this classification resulted from the presumption that its content is perceived to be objectionable, incendiary, illicit, or immoral by the applicable legislative authority or Government within the jurisdiction of the State of Minnesota – however, Near dismissed charges that his publication contained any intent of criminal behavior.

The classification of public censorship with regard to necessary or unnecessary censorship exists in tandem with the notion of the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; this differs both in accordance to locale and content

Media involving the promotion or undertaking of criminal activity, threat, malice, or the promotion of illegal and damaging ideas with the intent to cause harm

The Case Profile of Near v. Minnesota

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

Date of the Trial: January 30th, 1930

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 J. M. Near – the owner and operator of the publication titled ‘The Saturday Press’ against the State of Minnesota within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

J. M. Near cited that the State of California had violated both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights upon his arrest; he explained that his expression was neither illegal nor criminal in nature

As a result, the process under which he was arrested was in direct violation of his freedom of expression. explaining that incendiary, vulgar, or profane expression absent of criminal intent cannot be deemed as criminal acts

United States Reports Case Number: 283 U.S. 697

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 1st, 1931

Legal Venue of Near v. Minnesota: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

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

J. M. Near; Plaintiff – Near v. Minnesota

The State of Minnesota: Defendant – Near v. Minnesota

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Near, stating that the Minnesota Gag Law was a direct violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between incendiary expression and incendiary acts – Near’s sentiments expressed within his publication were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm.

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

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

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 Background of New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

In 1984, in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey, a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana; the acronym ‘T.L.O’ was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The arrest occurred after the student was caught smoking Marijuana; subsequent to her being caught, the high school administration enacted a search of both her and her belongings – as a result of the search, they discovered that she was indeed in possession of paraphernalia presumed to be drug-related:

Within the student’s trial, she maintained that the school had violated her 4th Amendment rights, which provide for the protection of citizens of the United States from unlawful searches and investigative measures undertaken by law enforcement and authoritative entities

The student maintained that the school retained no right to search her belongings, which resulted in what she had cited as an expressed violation of her privacy

The Case Profile of New Jersey v. TLO

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

Date of the Trial: March 28th, 1984

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 ‘TLO’ against the State of New Jersey:

Although the student was caught smoking illegal narcotics on school grounds, she had maintained that her right to privacy had been violated as a result of the investigation undertaken by the school’s administration

United States Reports Case Number: 469 U.S. 325

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 15th, 1985

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

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

The State of New Jersey was the plaintiff of the case

‘TLO’ – the acronym given to the high school student who was classified as a minor – was the defendant in the case

Verdict Delivered: The student was to remain guilty as charged; the Supreme Court stated that not only did her being caught smoking illegal narcotics serve as probable cause for the investigation, but events occurring on public school grounds are required to both be in adherence to legislation, as well as at the discretion of the institution

Associated Legislation with regard to New Jersey v. TLO: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the New Jersey v. TLO 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

Probable Cause is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual; this concept is rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being

The Background of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (2010)

In May of 2009, the County Court of Alameda County in the State of California had refused to allow same-sex couple Kristin Perry and Sandra Steir to receive a marriage license from the State of California, which would result in the legal recognition of their matrimony. As a result, Perry brought her case before the State Court of the State of California in order to dispute the illegality that she had maintained had befallen her and her partner. The ruling of the case rendered a verdict in favor of Perry, stating that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of her – and her partner’s – 14th Amendment Rights:

Proposition 8 was a proposed legislative Amendment to the State Constitution of California, which would remand preexisting legislature forbidding the marriage of couples of the same sex

The Equality Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 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 treatment and process with regard to the general populace of the United States

The Due Process Clause as expressed within the 14th Amendment to the Constitution 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 bias and damage

The Case Profile of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

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

Date of the Trial: August 4th, 2010

Date of the Appeal: The appeal set forth by the State of California is currently pending to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States

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 Kristin M. Perry against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Perry claimed that Proposition 8 was in direct violation of the civil rights and liberties entitled to individual citizens desiring to engage in legally-recognized, same-sex marriage(s)

California Circuit Court Case Number: No. 10-16696

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: August 4th, 2010

Legal Venue of Perry v. Schwarzenegger: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

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

Kristin M. Perry; Plaintiff – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

The State of California; Defendant – Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Verdict Delivered:

Associated Legislation with regard to Perry v. Schwarzenegger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger 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

What is Picture Editing?

Picture Editing is the procedure of altering, modifying, and adjusting visual images or pictures, which can include drawing, photographs, film cells, or paintings. Within the realm of artistry and media, Picture Editing can take place in a variety of settings absent of political or ideological methodology; in contrast, Picture Editing taking place within the realm of censorship will tend to do so in accordance to the applicable authoritative guidelines latent within a particular – or jurisdictional – institution.

What Causes Picture Editing?

Within the act of Picture Editing lies a variety of classification parameters undertaken by both the administration mandating the Picture Editing, as well as the subject matter of the picture being edited; regulations and ideologies may range in nature with regard to religion, intended audience, public – or private – guidelines of acceptability, and statutory legislation. For example, the following circumstances in which Picture Editing took place differ both in the setting of the Picture editing, as well as the authoritarian reasoning behind the Picture editing:

Picture Editing of the Photograph of Joseph Stalin and Nikolai Yezhov (1940)

In 1920, following a speech given by Vladimir Lenin, a photograph of Joseph Stalin was taken with cabinet leader Nikolai Yezhov; however, in 1940 – subsequent to Yezhov’s execution – Stalin ordered that Yezhov be removed from the photograph. Due to the fact that two versions of the photograph were in existence, this type of Picture Editing incited concern on the part of Russian citizens that arose with regard to the integrity of the information and media provided to them by the Russian leadership.

Picture Editing of the Cover of National Geographic Magazine (1982)

In 1982, National Geographic magazine had features the Pyramids of Egypt on the cover of their publication; however, prior to the pressing of the issue, editors had noticed that the distance between the two pyramids would disallow for both pyramids to fit onto the cover of the magazine. As a result, the editors enacted measures of Picture Editing that altered the natural distance between the two pyramids in order to successfully allow them to fit on the cover:

Subsequent to the release of the issue of the magazine, National Geographic found themselves to be the subject a vast array of debate with regard to both the integrity of their photojournalism, as well as the legality surrounding the Picture Editing employed

Arguments were presented questioning the authority of a magazine considered to be rooted within factual and truthful portrayal of media to be permitted to depict fallacious imagery

Critics of National Geographic argued that legislation regulating the integrity of pictures  advertised as fact should be uniform with the legislation regulating text advertised as fact

Picture Editing Legislation

The National Press Photographers Association, which is also known by its acronym NPPA, has instated a code of ethics and procedure with regard to both the process and procedure of Picture Editing; this code was enacted in order to ensure that images rendered through photojournalism would be presented in authentic and factual manners in conjunction with the subject matter.

The Background of Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)

The State of Massachusetts, in conjunction with a variety of other States, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – the federal department responsible for the regulation of domestic activities affecting the stasis of the environment, which are expressed and regulated within the statutes of Environmental Law – to regulate the emissions of greenhouse gases within individual States. However, the EPA maintained that Greenhouse gasses were not deemed to be ecological matters under their respective jurisdiction.

Greenhouse Gasses are defined as gaseous substances that are released on the surface of the Earth whose chemical makeup causes them to rise into the atmosphere; however, upon their integration into the atmosphere, greenhouse gasses do not dissolve – conversely, they serve as an ad-hoc shield preventing heat from effectively escaping from the Earth’s surface, which results in an unnatural alteration of climate and temperature:

The Case Profile of Massachusetts v. EPA

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

Date of the Trial: November 29th, 2006

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 citizen petitioners – via the State of Massachusetts against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The State of Massachusetts mandated that the EPA was in direct violation of the precepts latent within Environmental Law, which is comprised of statues expressing the regulatory procedures with regard to the mitigation of pollution and the organization of federal measures undertaken in order to protect the collective human health within the United States upon the denial to regulate Greenhouse gasses

United States Reports Case Number: 05-1120

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 2nd, 2007

Legal Venue of Massachusetts v. EPA: 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 Massachusetts v. EPA case:

Citizen Petitioners – via The State of Massachusetts – Plaintiff(s) – Massachusetts v. EPA

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); Defendant(s) – Massachusetts v. EPA

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Massachusetts, explaining that in lieu of the development of the science of ecology, which at times allowed for difficulty classifying circumstances and events, Greenhouse Gases were determined to be corollary to the assessment of ecological damage or proliferation resulting from their release and respective existence within the atmosphere

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

The Clean Air Act is a conglomeration of legislation establishing regulatory legislature with regard to the preservation and protection of the stasis of the ecology

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. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Massachusetts lawyers.

The Background of the Menendez Brothers Trial

On August 20th, 1989, the Menendez Brothers – Lyle and Erik – undertook the murder of their parents on the grounds of their Beverley Hills home in the State of California. Although the motives for the murders were called into question during the legal proceedings, the accounts of criminal intent varied greatly; the defense maintained that the Menendez Brothers murdered their parents as a result of withstanding years of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of their parents – the prosecution maintained that the Menendez Brothers had murdered their parents in order to receive monies from their parents’ life insurance policy.

Prior to the conviction of the Menendez Brothers, the Menendez Brothers denied any involvement with regard to the murders. Eventually, the brothers had received their parents’ life insurance premium and began a string of wild spending with little regard to their own finances. During a therapy session, Erik Menendez confessed to his psychiatrist that he and his brother had killed their parents; upon hearing this development, Lyle Menendez threatened the doctor to remain silent.

Although the ideology of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality – also known as the Hippocratic Oath – is a legal instrument, which ensures that a medical professional be unable to divulge testimony with regard to information learned in the midst of medical treatment or care. Although Erik  Menendez divulged the murder of his parents to his psychiatrist – a medical professional – the notion of Doctor-Patient Confidentiality was breached upon Lyle Menendez threatening the doctor to remain silent about what he had learned.

The Case Profile of the Menendez Brothers Trial

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘The Menendez Brothers Trial’:

Date of the Trial: June 12th, 1995

Legal Classification: Criminal Law is the legal field that focuses on both the prosecution and defense of criminal activity conducted in both public, private, and electronic sectors – with regard to a Fraud charge, a criminal attorney can provide assistance in the preparation of a case upon review of the case details; with regard to Fraud charges, the intent, motive, and behavior implemented by the perpetrator is taken into consideration prior to sentencing

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

The Menendez Brothers were accused of committing murder in the first degree, classified as the premeditated, purposeful, illegal, and deliberate execution of an individual or individuals

The Menendez Brothers were accused of life insurance fraud, classified as the attempt to collect on a life insurance policy as a result of spurious, illegal, and unlawful intention resulting from the murder of their parents in order to collect the life insurance premium belonging to them

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: July 2nd, 1996

Legal Venue of the Menendez Brothers Trial: The State Court of California is Los Angeles County

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Menendez Brothers trial:

Gil Garcetti – Los Angeles District Attorney; Plaintiff

Jose Menendez; Murder Victim

Kitty Menendez; Murder Victim

Erik Menendez; Defendant

Lyle Menendez; Defendant

Leslie Abramson; Defense Attorney

Verdict Delivered: The Menendez Brothers were found guilty of the murder of their parents and were both sentenced to life sentences without the chance(s) of parole. Subsequent to the trial, the Menendez Brothers appealed their verdict before the California Court of Appeals in 1998; the California Court of Appeals concurred with the finding of the initial verdict – furthermore, the United States Supreme Court did not accept the Menendez Brothers case for the further review.

The Background of the Michael Jackson Trial

Famed singer Michael Jackson was accused of child molestation subsequent to testimony given by 13 year old Gavin Arvizo; Arvizo maintained that Michael Jackson had allowed the minor victim to become intoxicated while on the premises of Michael Jackson’s residence deemed ‘Neverland Ranch’. Arvizo claimed that Michael Jackson had not only sexually-assaulted Arvizo, but also threatened to abduct the child’s parents in order to prevent any reports released to law enforcement. However, Michale Jackson denied any involvement in any of the allegations, claiming that the Arvizo family had hoped to extort monies from Jackson through the proposal of threats of testimony that Jackson had committed child molestation:

Extortion is defined as the criminal act undertaken by an individual or entity with the hopes of controlling, manipulating, or forcing the behavior of another individual or entity through the implementation of threat or blackmail

The Case Profile of the Michael Jackson Trial

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘The Michael Jackson Trial’:

Date of the Trial: January 31st, 2005

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 Gavin Arvizo – while his parents, David Arvizo and Janet Arvizo – acted as his petitioners from the State of California – against Michael Jackson within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Child Molesters is defined as individuals who violate the rights of children or minors through a variety of actions, which may include exploitation, violence, and physical harm rooted within illicit, unlawful, and unethical sexual activity

5 Conspirators were named in conjunction with the charges filed against Jackson; the conspiracy charges involved the participation of the individuals with regard to the creation and arrangement of a plan to abduct the Arvizo family

Grand Jury of the State of California Case Number: 1133603

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 13th, 2005

Legal Venue of Michael Jackson: The State Court of California in Santa Barbara County

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Michael Jackson trial:

Gavin Arvizo; Plaintiff (minor)

David Arvizo; Plaintiff (parent of Gavin Arvizo, acting as petitioner)

Janet Arvizo; Plaintiff (parent of Gavin Arvizo, acting as petitioner)

Thomas Sneddon; Prosecuting Attorney

Michael Jackson; Defendant

Frank Tyson; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Vincent Amen; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Marc Schaffel; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Dieter Wiesner; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Ronald Konitzer; Defendant (accused conspirator)

Mark Geragos; Defense Attorney (replaced mid-case)

Benjamin Brafman; Defense Attorney (replaced mid-case)

Thomas Mesereau; Defense Attorney (replacement)

Verdict Delivered: Michael Jackson was arraigned of all charges filed against him, due to the fact that not only was the testimony delivered by the Arvizo family found to be faulty, but the jury maintained that the behavior enacted by the Arvizo family was indicative of extortion.

The Background of Miller v. California (1973)

Miller v. California was a Supreme Court case involving an individual named Marvin Miller, who was in ownership of a commercial operation that undertook the provision of items considered to be ‘sexually explicit’ in nature. In 1972, Miller undertook an advertising campaign in which he disseminated a mass amount of letters to individuals who did not request such information; a mother and her child received one of Miller’s advertisements and were offended by the nature of the publications – shortly afterwards, they complained to California law enforcement:

Miller was found guilty of disseminating material considered to be unsuitable and objectionable with regard to the public sector; however, Miller appealed the verdict with regard to the determination of ‘obscene’ – he claimed that the ruling was a violation of his 1st Amendment Rights, which awarded him the freedom of speech and expression

The Case Profile of Miller v. California

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

Date of the Trial: January 19th, 1972

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 Miller against the State of California

Marvin Miller claimed that he was being unlawfully censored due to the fact that both the concept and notion of material deemed to be ‘obscene’ was determined on a subjective basis

United States Reports Case Number: 413 U.S. 15

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 21st, 1973

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Warren E. Burger

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

Marvin Miller, in the midst of Miller v. California, was the plaintiff of the case; this case took place in an appellate forum following the prior guilty verdict issued to him

The State of California was the defendant within Miller v. California

Verdict Delivered: Marvin Miller was found guilty of the misdemeanor of distributing material that could be considered to be objectionable in nature

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

The 1st Amendment affords citizens of the United States with the freedom of religion, the freedom of press, the freedom of speech, and the right of assembly

The development of the ’Miller Test’, which is defined as methodology of the classification of whether or not material is to be deemed as obscene; this includes the application of community standards and the preservation of wellbeing within the public sector, the degree of offensiveness latent within the expression in question, and an analysis of the expressed intent of the creator