The Background of Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

On September 17th, 1998, two men – John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Gardner – were arrested in the area of Houston, Texas subsequent to the discovery of law enforcement agents that the two men had been engaged in consensual anal sex; an act that was considered to be illegal within the Texas Penal Code under a statute entitled ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’ – this prohibited sexual conduct between individuals of the same sex. Law enforcement agents arrived to the home of John Lawrence after a neighbor had issued a fallacious complain that an individual within the Lawrence residence was wielding a weapon; upon arrival, the law enforcement agents were made aware that the two men were engaging in sexual activity – they were subsequently arrested

The Case Profile of Lawrence v. Texas

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

Date of the Trial: March 26th, 2003

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 John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner against the State of Texas within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

While the nature of the search and seizure of the two individuals was never made mention within the subsequent case of Lawrence v. Texas, both Lawrence and Gardner maintained that the Homosexual Conduct Laws were direct violations of both men’s 14th Amendment Rights

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 558

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 26th, 2003

Legal Venue of Lawrence v. Texas: 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 Lawrence v. Texas case:

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Gardner; Plaintiff(s) – Lawrence v. Texas

The State of Texas; Defendant – Lawrence v. Texas

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that the ‘Homosexual Conduct Laws’ were indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment with regard to the provision of equality within statutory legislation regardless of race, gender, creed, ethnicity, and sexual orientation

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

The expressed restriction stated within Chapter 21, Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code states that any nature of oral or anal sexual intercourse undertaken between two individuals of the same sex is considered to be illegal; this was also referred to as the ‘Homosexual Conduct Law’

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 Contact Texas lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

The Background of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Lemon v. Kurtzman was a legal hearing taking place within the State of Pennsylvania appealing for the repeal of a State statute allowing for supplemental compensation afforded from the State budget to be disbursed to instructors and educational programs undertaking the provision of religious-based studies, lessons, and activities; this was stated within the Non-public Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1968. Lemon, a Pennsylvania instructor cited a violation of the Establishment Clause stated within the United States Constitution with regard to this practice:

The Establishment Clause within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution strictly prohibits the establishment of any supplemental legislation or statutory law that joins the interests of religious bodies with interests of the general population

Also known as the ‘Separation of Church and State’ – the government is prohibited from placing the interest of any institution or agency over those of the general populace of citizens

The Case Profile of Lemon v. Kurtzman

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

Date of the Trial: March 3rd, 1971

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 Alton J. Lemon against David H. Kurtzman – acting as the Superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction in the State of Pennsylvania within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Lemon maintained that the preferential treatment of items and services considered to be rooted in religion was a direct violation of the requirement to separate church and State; an argument was set forth explaining that the Constitution prohibited specific religions from expressly benefiting from statutory legislation

United States Reports Case Number: 403 U.S. 602

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 1971

Legal Venue of Lemon v. Kurtzman: 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 Lemon v. Kurtzman case:

Alton J. Lemon; Plaintiff – Lemon v. Kurtzman

David H. Kurtzman; Defendant – Lemon v. Kurtzman

Verdict Delivered: The passing or creation of any law which establishes a religious body and directly impedes the autonomy and agency of an individual with regard to religious belief; this includes the prohibition of the enforcement of religious viewpoints considered to infringe on the freedom of speech, the right peaceable assembly, the freedom of the press, or the petitioning for a governmental evaluation of grievances. This verdict also led to the creation of the Lemon Test, which is a classification system employed with regard to statutes and laws pertaining to religion in public facilities and institutions:

The Lemon Test serves to avoid specific actions expressly allowing religions to benefit from legal statutes

The Lemon Test ensures that secular interest takes priority within public setting s and institutions

The Lemon Test creates methodology disallowing the government to become overtly – and overly – involved within religious institution and ideology

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

With regard to the freedom of expression, the 1st Amendment this statute reinforces the expressed ‘freedom of assembly’, which allows individuals the autonomy and agency to make personal decisions in accordance to legality and legislation

The Background of  Lochner v. New York (1905)

Lochner v. New York is considered to be amongst the most landmark court cases occurring within the history of the United States, and arguably one of the most prominent with regard to labor laws enacted within the United States. Joseph Lochner, a baker in the city of Utica, New York, argued against the statutes imposed by New York legislature with regard to the hours permissible for bakeries to operate; this was in response to the Bakeshop Act passed in 1895, which prohibited bakeries to operate for an excess of 60 hours during a single week. Joseph Lochner contended that if both he and his staff willfully desired to work more than 60 hours, they should be permitted to do so in accordance with the tenets expressed within the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:

The time period in which Lochner v. New York took place is sometimes referred to as the ‘Lochner Era’ due to the fact that a multitude of labor legislation was argued

The Case Profile of Lochner v. New York

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

Date of the Trial: February 23rd, 1905

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 Joseph Lochner against the State of New York

Joseph Lochner contended that the statutes expressed within the Bakeshop Act of 1895 were unconstitutional and a direct violation of his civil liberties of ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’

United States Reports Case Number: 198 U.S. 45

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 17th, 1905

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Melvin Fuller

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

Joseph Lochner was the plaintiff in Lochner v. New York

The State of New York was the defendant in Lochner v. New York

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court found the Bakeshop Act to be in violation of the Constitution and mandated that the State of New York was unable to enforce labor stipulations with regard to operations not performed under duress or threat; furthermore, the Supreme Court had ruled that a State was unable to regulate legal employment

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

The Background of Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Mildred Loving – an African-American woman – and Richard Loving – a Caucasian man – were married within Washington D.C. in 1958; although the two were residents of the State of Virginia, the District of Columbia allowed for the marriage of individuals who differed in race – conversely, the State of Virginia had expressly outlawed such a practice. Upon their return, the Lovings were arrested as a result of the presumed violation of statutory legislation prohibiting the marriage of individuals of differing races or ethnicities.

The Anti-Miscegenation Statue, passed in the State of Virginia in 1924, mandated the illegality of ‘inter-marriage’, which was defined as individuals of differing races engaging in matrimony

The Case Profile of Loving v. Virginia

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

Date of the Trial: April 10th, 1967

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates the legal instrument of ‘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 Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving against the State of Virginia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The Lovings accused the State of Virginia of a violation of the couple’s right to marital privacy through the violation of their respective – and collective – 14th Amendment rights; although the Lovings were initially sentenced to a year in prison, the State of Virginia Court offered to suspend the sentence in the event that the Lovings departed from the State of Virginia

United States Reports Case Number: 388 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 12th, 1967

Legal Venue of Loving v. Virginia: 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 Loving v. Virginia case:

Richard Perry Loving and Mildred Jeter Loving; Plaintiff(s) – Loving v. Virginia

The State of Virginia; Defendant – Loving v. Virginia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Anti-Miscegenation Statute claiming that it was indirect 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. The Supreme Court added that not only was the statute a violation of the 14th Amendment but also to civil liberties and rights allowing for the privacy and individual freedoms entitled to American citizens

Associated Legislation with regard to Loving v. Virginia: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Loving v. Virginia 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 Mapp v. Ohio (1961)?

Mapp v. Ohio is considered to be amongst the most famous Supreme Court cases to have taken place within the 20th century; this case was an appeal to the prior arrest of Dollree Mapp by the Cleveland Police Department. Prior to Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff – was arrested after police officers had entered her home in order to search for a fugitive whom Mapp was believed to be harboring; the Cleveland Police Department – following several denials for entry on the part of Mapp – were reported to have falsified a search warrant and forcibly enter the residence of Dollree Mapp.

Subsequent to their entry, the police were unable to locate the alleged fugitive; however, they discovered material within the Mapp household that was determined to be “lewd and lascivious” according to police reports – these items were described as books

Dollree Mapp was arrested upon this discovery, but was not charged; however, she maintained that not only did the police lack the grounds to arrest her, but her 4th Amendment rights had been violated, as well

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

The Case Profile of Mapp v. Ohio

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

Date of the Trial: 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

United States Reports Case Number: 367 U.S. 643

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

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

Dollree Mapp – the plaintiff

The State of Ohio – the defendant

Verdict Delivered: The verdict ruled that Ms. Mapp’s rights were indeed violated as a result of the failure of the Cleveland Police Departments failure to adhere to the tenets of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

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

Subsequent to the delivery of the verdict in Mapp v. Ohio, a system of due process was outlined with regard to the search and seizure procedure undertaken within an investigation of a private residence

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

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

The Background of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Clarence Brandenburg was a member of the Ku Klux Klan located in the outskirts of Cincinnati, Ohio; upon the organization of a county Ku Klux Klan rally, Brandenburg contacted a local news publication in Cincinnati in order to invite them to cover the events taking place. The news arrived at the rally and filmed the events taking place, which resulted in the broadcast of racist, derogatory, and objectionable hate-speech on television. Following a multitude of complaints, Brandenburg was arrested as a resulted of a presumed violation of an Ohio statute prohibiting the syndication of expression and speech deemed to be objectionable, violent, and offensive; Brandenburg disputed the charges explaining that his actions were absent of criminal intent:

The notion of criminal intent – or the intention to commit a crime – is explored in trials and lawsuits that involve charges of both free speech, as well as the violation of free speech; as a result, the freedom of expression latent within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution requires the permissibility of free speech in the event that it is devoid of criminal intent or illegal recourse

The Case Profile of Brandenburg v. Ohio

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

Date of the Trial: February 27th, 1969

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 Clarence Brandenburg against the State of Ohio within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Brandenburg maintained that his 1st Amendment Rights had been violated due to his arrest, which was due to the fact that he had been punished for non-violent and non-criminal expression

United States Reports Case Number: 395 U.S. 444

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 9th, 1969

Legal Venue of Brandenburg v. Ohio: 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 Brandenburg v. Ohio case:

Clarence Brandenburg; Plaintiff – Brandenburg v. Ohio

The State of Ohio; Defendant – Brandenburg v. Ohio

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, stating that the Ohio statute prohibiting the syndication of speech and expression deemed to be objectionable was violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between implied violence and violent acts; although there existed arguable latent violence within the events of the Ku Klux Rally, the sentiments expressed were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm

Associated Legislation with regard to Brandenburg v. Ohio: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Brandenburg v. Ohio 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. Contact Ohio lawyers for legal advice and assistance.