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

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 Engle v. Vitale (1962)

In 1962 within New Hyde Park, New York – a village on Long Island – the public school system introduced a required prayer to be recited prior to lessons; furthermore, the school district required that all students participate in the prayer. The prayer read as follows: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.” Many students, in addition to supplementary coalitions existing in New Hyde Park maintained that the incorporation of religion into publically-funded, governmental institutions was prohibited:

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

The 1st Amendment also requires the ‘Separation of Church and State’ – both the government, as well as publically funded institutions, are prohibited from placing the interest of any institution or agency over those of the general populace of citizens

The Case Profile of Engle v. Vitale

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

Date of the Trial: April 3rd, 1962

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 Steven I. Engel against William J. Vitale within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The students enrolled within the New Hyde Park public school system explained that required prayer was in direct violation of their collective 1st Amendment Rights

United States Reports Case Number: 370 U.S. 421

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 25th, 1962

Legal Venue of Engle v. Vitale: 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 Engle v. Vitale case:

Steven I. Engel; Plaintiff – Engle v. Vitale

William J. Vitale; Defendant – Engle v. Vitale

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and against the New Hyde Park School System explaining that required prayer was indeed in violation of the 1st Amendment Rights entitled to any and all citizens of the United States. The ruling expressed that students who wished not to participate in the prayer were entitled to leave the classroom during the time of prayer or remain silent during its recitation.

Associated Legislation with regard to Engle v. Vitale: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Engle v. Vitale 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