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

What is Miranda v. Arizona (1966)?

Miranda v. Arizona was a court case that took place in the State of Arizona in which Ernesto Miranda, a 22 year old male, was accused of raping an 18 year old female in 1963. Upon his apprehension, Miranda was presented with a confession requiring his signature; Miranda underwent a police interrogation that was reported as spanning upwards of 2 hours – within his interrogation, he made a full confession, agreeing that he did so without duress, force, or threat. However, Miranda’s attorneys argued that not only did the arresting officers not make Miranda aware of his right to representation, but they also neglected to advise Miranda of his right to remain silent in order to avoid any nature of self-incrimination:

Subsequent to the initial verdict, Miranda was found guilty of the charge of rape; however, he appealed the verdict and Miranda v. Arizona was heard before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court hearing undertook judicial review with regard to the validity of a confession with regard to the level of information provided to the suspect in question

The 5th Amendment of the constitution requires a suspect be informed of a right to remain silent upon an arrest; The 6th Amendment requires a suspect under arrest to be informed to their right to a fair and represented hearing

The Case Profile of Miranda v. Arizona

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

Date of the Trial: 1966

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: Although Miranda was accused of rape, the appeal addressed the lack of due process within Miranda’s arrest

United States Reports Case Number: 384 U.S. 436

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 13th, 1966

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of State of Arizona

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Verdict Delivered: Warren found that both Miranda’s 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated; however, supplementary evidence contributed to the finding of a ‘guilty’ verdict with regard to the rape trial – Miranda served 11 years in prison

Associated Legislation with regard to Miranda v. Arizona: The Miranda Rights were established subsequent to the hearing of Miranda v. Arizona; these statutes state that upon an arrest protocol that be upheld by any and all arresting officers:

The Miranda Rights include the Fifth Amendment, which states that an individual retains the right to remain silent in order to avoid incriminating themselves – this is also known as ‘pleading the Fifth’

The Miranda Rights require that arrestees are made aware of their respective right to counsel and trial

The right for any words spoken during the arrest to be admissible during a trial

The right to consult with an attorney; regardless of financial stature

Who is John Gotti?

John Gotti was an individual who is considered to be one of the most notorious and prolific conspirators and participants within organized criminal activity within the United States within the 20th century; he is credited as serving as the head, a term commonly referred to as ‘Boss’, of the Gambino Crime Family – the Gambino Family is one of the 5 most recognized criminal families existing within the United States:

As a member of an organized criminal operation deeply rooted in family ties, this criminal operation was structured in conjunction with a ‘familial’ hierarchical system in which its members participated

John Gotti engaged in both outwardly illegal activity, as well as clandestine criminal activity under the guise of legitimate business activity; as a result, he is reported as participating in both mob and mafia activity criminal in nature

John Gotti was given the nickname of ‘The Teflon Don’ as a result of his multiple arraignments of criminal charges taking place within the 1980’s; this title was formed as a result of the nature of the material classified as Teflon – this material provides a slick and slippery surface

The Case Profile of John Gotti

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

Date of Birth: John Gotti was born on October 27th, 1940 in The Bronx, New York; he died while incarcerated on June 10th, 2002 in the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri – he had suffered from terminal throat cancer

Residence: New York, New York

Dates of Crimes: John Gotti’s first crime is reported as a hijacking offense that took place at John F. Kennedy Airport in Queens, New York in 1968; in conjunction with his apprehension, he was charged with the illegal seizure and possession of stolen goods

Criminal Charges: John Gotti was charged with the following crimes over the course of his involvement in criminal activity:

Murder

Conspiracy

Racketeering; violating the RICO statutes

Obstruction of Justice

Tax Evasion

Money Laundering

Date of the Trial: April 2nd, 1992

Legal Venue: United States Eastern District Court of New York State

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

John Gotti was charged and convicted with the murder of 13 individuals; evidence and testimony furnished by fellow crime family member Samuel Gravano assisted in John Gotti’s conviction – Gravano was later placed in the witness protection program

While in prison, John Gotti was suspected of bribery and the conspiracy to commit murder of a fellow prisoner

Verdict Delivered: April 2nd, 1992

Punishment and Conviction: Subsequent to his conviction, John Gotti was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole; prior to his death in a Medical Facility for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, he resided in the United States Federal Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois

The Background of Katz v. United States (1967)

In 1967, Charles Katz used a public telephone in Los Angeles, California in order to place illegal gambling bets; within his telephone call, he placed wagers to individuals in Boston and Miami. Upon placing bets over the telephone, Katz was unaware that the Federal Government – through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – was conducting an investigation through the electronic collection of data; the FBI was both monitoring and recording the – presumably private – conversations of individuals using the pay telephone. Subsequent to the Katz’s conversation, he was arrested and apprehended by the FBI. Charles Katz cited that the FBI had violated his personal privacy and private settings:

A reasonable expectation of privacy is a legal statute requiring governmental authorities to both preserve and protect the privacy of their individual citizens and residents; this entails the prohibition of measures and acts that may be deemed as violating the private settings and personal domains belonging to private individual citizens

The Case Profile of Katz v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Katz v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: October 17th, 1967

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 Charles Katz against the United Stated through the FBI within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Katz cited that the FBI lacked sufficient probable cause with regard to their investigation, which is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private expressions and property belonging to an individual

United States Reports Case Number: 389 U.S. 347

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 18th, 1967

Legal Venue of Katz v. United States: 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 Katz v. United States case:

Charles Katz; Plaintiff – Katz v. United States

The Federal Government of the United Stated; Defendant – Katz v. United States

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Katz, stating that the investigation had indeed violated his right to privacy expressed within the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court stated that within the use of a public telephone is the implicit understanding that a personal telephone call is subject to privacy; however, in the event that probable cause or sufficient reasoning for such surveillance exists, the Federal Government will be permitted to conduct such investigations.

Associated Legislation with regard to Katz v. United States: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Katz v. United States 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

The Background of Korematsu v. United States (1944)

During World War II, President Roosevelt passed Presidential Executive Order 9066, which mandated the placement of Japanese residents and citizens within the United States into specialized facilities in which they were excluded from the general populace. Although, in a time of peace, this Presidential order would have been perceived as a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, Roosevelt explained that the order was instated in order to prevent any type of internal sabotage or damage caused by prospective measures of Japanese sympathy – this was in conjunction to the fact that Japan was considered to be an enemy of the United States during World War II:

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 Korematsu – the substantiation of martial law during a time of war within the United States

The Case Profile of Korematsu v. United States

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Korematsu v. United States’:

Date of the Trial: December 18th, 1944

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 Fred Korematsu against the United States of America within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Korematsu cited that the forced residence into excluded camps and facilities was a direct violation of human rights and civil liberties afforded to American Citizens as was expressed within the 14th Amendment

United States Reports Case Number: 323 U.S. 214

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 18th, 1944

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Korematsu v. United States case:

Fred Korematstu; Plaintiff – Korematsu v. United States

The United States of America; Defendant – Korematsu v. United States

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States of America, explaining that in accordance with Military Law, the protection and preservation of the safety and wellbeing of the general citizenship of the United States outweighed individual – and personal freedoms. The ruling included the explanation that the existence of war allowed for extenuating circumstances with regard to the translation of the Constitution

Associated Legislation with regard to Korematsu v. United States: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Korematsu v. United States trial:

The 5th Amendment states that subsequent to apprehension, 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

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 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 the Black Dahlia Murder?

The Black Dahlia Murder was an informal classification given to a murder that too place in Los Angeles, California on January 15th, 1947; the term ‘Black Dahlia Murder’ was given to this particular murder due to the fact that the victim of the murder – 22 year old Elizabeth Short – was nicknamed the ‘Black Dahlia’. Many historians maintain that the nature of this nickname was derived from the fact that Short was oftentimes seen donning black clothing, which accompanied her black hair. Although upwards of 60 suspects were called into question, the true murderer of Elizabeth Short has never been determined, making the Black Dahlia Murder one of the most prolific and noteworthy unsolved murder cases in the history of the United States.

Details of the Black Dahlia Murder