The Background of Bush v. Gore

On December 8th, 2000, the Palm Beach County Court imposed a manual recount of upwards of 9,000 election ballots with regard to the Presidential election involving George W. Bush and Albert Gore – the previous Vice President to the Bill Clinton Presidency. The reasoning behind the manual recount was explained to be the result of faulty ballot equipment, as well as the suspicion of ballot tampering. Albert Gore petitioned this case before the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, and the manual recount was enacted.

The case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) was enacted by the campaign of George W. Bush with regard to a Florida Circuit Court that had undertaken the recounting of

The Case Profile of Bush v. Gore

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

Date of the Trial: December 11th, 2000

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 George W. Bush against Albert Gore within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

George W. Bush explained that the manual recount resulted in the undermining of the 14th Amendment, which precludes legislation from enacting measures and activity considered to exist in contrast to the preservation of equality and uniformity within the administrative system

United States Reports Case Number: 531 U.S. 98

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 12th, 2000

Legal Venue of Bush v. Gore: 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 Bush v. Gore case:

George W. Bush; Plaintiff – Bush v. Gore

Albert Gore; Defendant – Bush v. Gore

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush, explaining that the State of Florida had indeed violated the 14th Amendment upon enacting a recounting procedure not considered to be cogent with the Equal Protection Clause; the Supreme Court maintained that this procedure resulted in the devaluation of the ballots initially set forth

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

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

The 14th Amendment introduced the Equal Protection Clause, which mandates the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens;  governments are forbidden from infringing on civil rights and liberties resulting in the diminishing of uniform and equal undertaking of legislation

The Background of Chimel v. California (1969)

The case of Chimel v. California involved the analysis of measures undertaken by law enforcement officers with regard to the arrest – and subsequent conviction – of Ted Chimel, resulting from a suspicion that he had burglarized a commercial establishment selling coins and valuables. The arresting officers arrived at Chimel’s house and presented his wife with an arrest warrant for her husband; the officers remained in the house until Chimel arrived – upon his return, they presented him with the arrest warrant, inquiring Chimel’s permission to search his home. However, after coercion, the police performed a search of the Chimel household under the supervision of Chimel’s wife:

The officers found coins and other valuable presumably to have resulted from Chimel’s alleged robbery; Chimel was arrested and his coins were taken from him

Prior to his Supreme Court hearing in which he disputed the right of the officers to search his home due to the fact that neither a search warrant nor probable cause was apparent, the California Court of Appeals denied Chimel’s appeal on the grounds that presumed probable cause existed

The Case Profile of Chimel v. California

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

Date of the Trial: March 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 Ted Chimel against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Chimel noted that although the officers had an arrest warrant, they were not in possession of a search warrant; as a result, Chimel denied the officers permission to search his home – he claimed that both his 4th and 14th Amendment Rights had been violated

United States Reports Case Number: 395 U.S. 752

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 23rd, 1969

Legal Venue of Chimel v. California: 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 Chimel v. California case:

Ted Chimel; Plaintiff – Chimel v. California

The State of California; Defendant – Chimel v. California

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ted Chimel, claiming that the police did not have probable cause to search the Chimel household; this ruling added that not only did the police violate due process, but they also had undertaken biased proceedings with regard to Chimel’s alleged guilt – they had acted as though Chimel were guilty of the crime for which he was suspected

Associated Legislation with regard to Chimel v. California: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Chimel v. California 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 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 Cohen v. California (1971)

The case of Cohen v. California took place with regard to the freedom of speech and expression within the jurisdiction of the State of California. While inside the Los Angeles County Courthouse, Paul Robert Cohen donned a jacket expressing language determined to be vulgar with regard to the ongoing military draft process taking place at the time; the statement was apparent on the back of his jacket – however, Cohen did not wear the jacket into the courtroom, but donned the jacket upon leaving the courtroom. Upon donning the jacket, he was subsequently arrested on the grounds of disturbing the peace within a public setting; in addition, he was also charged with an act of profane expression.

The Case Profile of Cohen v. California

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

Date of the Trial: February 22nd, 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 Paul Robert Cohen against the State of California within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Cohen accused the State of California of violating both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights had been violated upon his arrest; he explained that his expression was neither illegal nor criminal in nature – as a result, the process under which he was arrested was in direct violation of his freedom of expression

United States Reports Case Number: 403 U.S. 15

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 7th, 1971

Legal Venue of Cohen v. California: 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 Cohen v. California case:

Paul Robert Cohen; Plaintiff – Cohen v. California

The State of California; Defendant – Cohen v. California

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cohen, explaining that incendiary, vulgar, or profane expression absent of criminal intent cannot be deemed as criminal acts; the supreme Court added that although the determination of obscenity is both relative and subjective, expressions laced with profanity must be evaluated with regard to their expressed intent

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

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

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

Who was John Dillinger?

John Dillinger was an individual commonly referred to as a ‘gangster’, which is a classification that is given to individual participants in undertaking involving organized crime; the origination of the term ‘gangster’ may have arrived within the early 1900s in which organized criminal activity – known as gangs – were prevalent within the United States of America. John Dillinger is regarded as one of the most prolific and notorious criminals within the 20th century; he has been reported as being responsible for a multitude of robberies and famous prison escapes.

The Case Profile of John Dillinger

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

Date of Birth: John Dillinger was born on June 22nd, 1903 in Champaign, Illinois; he was killed at the age of 31 in Chicago Illinois on June 22nd, 1934

Residence: Due to his criminal activity, John Dillinger frequently changed locations; at the end of his life, he spent time in the Western part of the United States committing robberies

Dates of Crimes: John Dillinger’s first crime involved the robbery of a grocery store in 1929; a crime for which he was paroled after serving an estimated 4 and half years in the Indiana State Prison – subsequent to his release in 1933, he began a rampant criminal spree that last from 1933 until his death in 1934.

Criminal Charges: John Dillinger was charged robbery, evading capture, and the escape from prison; however, historians claim that he had murdered a police officer in Chicago – a claim with which he was never charged

Date of the Trial: John Dillinger was only put on trial subsequent his botched robbery of a grocery store in 1929; he was killed prior to both apprehension and trial with regard to the bulk of his crime spree that had taken place between 1933 and 1934

Legal Venue: Chicago, Illinois

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

Although John Dillinger was not charged with the murder, he is reported to have displayed a great deal of remorse for his involvement in the murder of the Chicago law enforcement agent; it was the only murder with which he had ever been associated

John Dillinger served in the United States Navy and was discharged shortly after the atrt of his service

John Dillinger’s gang included notorious gangsters including Pretty Boy Floyd and Baby Face Nelson

John Dillinger was killed by Melvin Purvis; Purvis was the same Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Agent credited with the murder of Pretty Boy Floyd

John Dillinger, who was listed as the FBI’s ‘Public Enemy No. 1’ was responsible for upwards of 20 bank robberies, as well as a prison escape in which he is reported as fashioning a pistol made of wood in lieu of metal

The Background of Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

The case of ‘Cohens v. Virginia’ involved two brothers – P.J. Cohen and M.J. Cohen – who undertook the sale of tickets for the Lottery of District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) within the State of Virginia; although Congress had mandated the legality of State lotteries within the United States, the State of Virginia had enacted legislature forbidding the sale of lottery tickets belonging to other States and Districts within Virginia borders. Although the legality latent within the case was a primary consideration, the focal point of the Cohens v. Virginia case is considered to be the establishment of policy regulating the ability of the Federal Government to overrule legislation belonging to individual States; as a result, the Cohens argued their case before the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Federal Government mandated a legal lottery: If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Virginia lawyers.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 states that all Judiciary power is to be concentrated within a single entity, which is known as the Supreme Court of the United States; as a result, legal hearings and decisions deemed to be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government under the Supremacy Clause are to be tried before the Supreme Court of the United States

The Case Profile of Cohens v. Virginia

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

Date of the Trial: March 3rd, 1821

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 P.J. Cohen and M.J. Cohen – referred to as ‘Cohens’ against the State of Virginia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The Cohens argued that their respective arrest within the State of Virginia was in violation of the Constitution, resulting from the fact that they were selling legal lottery tickets mandated by the Federal Government

United States Reports Case Number: 19 U.S. 264

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 3rd, 1821

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

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

P.J. Cohens and M.J. Cohens; Plaintiff(s) – Cohens v. Virginia

The State of Virginia; Defendant – Cohens v. Virginia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Virginia, explaining that the State of Virginia was entitled to enact such legislation within the borders of the States. However, the State of Virginia claimed that the Federal Government was unable to hear cases with regards to individual State legislation; this claim was overruled upon citing that the Federal Government was to assume finality with regard to matters and circumstances existing between multiple States.

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

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

What is Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)?

Dred Scott v. Sanford, which is commonly referred to as the ‘Dred Scott Case’ is considered to be one of the most famous court cases in the history of the United States, and arguably the most famous court case with regard to the Civil Rights Movement. Dred Scott, the plaintiff, was an African-American slave belonging to John Emerson – both of whom resided in Missouri; Missouri was considered to be a State in which slavery was allowed:

John Emerson had moved to Illinois, taking Dred Scott with him; however, Illinois was state in which slavery was not permitted – after spending 12 years in Illinois and surrounding Midwestern States, Dred Scott refused to return to Missouri with Emerson

Dred Scott maintained that he was no longer mandated to slavery due to the legislation within the State of Illinois; Dred Scott sued Emerson’s estate – represented by the executor of the estate, John Sanford – claiming that he was freed from his slavery due to the locational legislation

The Case Profile of Dred Scott v. Sanford

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Dred Scott v. Sanford’:

Date of the Trial: 1857

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: Dred Scott accused the Emerson estate via John Sanford of unlawfully detaining Dred Scott

United States Reports Case Number: 60 U.S. 393

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: The verdict was delivered on March 6th, 1857

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of Missouri

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Roger Taney

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case:

Dred Scott – the defendant

John Emerson – whose estate was represented by John Sanford – was a military officer who had changed residences as a result of his military service; he brought Dred Scott with him upon changing residences

Verdict Delivered: The ruling was in favor of Sanford; the finding of the Dred Scott case explained that due to the fact that slaves were not considered to be citizens of the United States, the legislation within the Constitution of the United States was not applicable – as a result, Dred Scott was forced to return to slavery

Associated Legislation with regard to Dred Scott v. Sanford: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Dred Scott v. Sanford trial:

Although Dred Scott attempted to cite the 5th Amendment of the Constitution stating that this Amendment prevents the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body; however, due to the fact that slaves were not considered to be eligible with regard to citizenship, the Amendment was deemed void

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

The Case Profile of Al Capone

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

Date of Birth: Al Capone was born on January 17th, 1899 in Brooklyn, New York; he died on January 25th, 1947 while in his home in Miami, Florida subsequent to his release from prison in 1939 – he was 48 years old

Residence: Although Capone died in Miami, he conducted a bulk of his criminal activity in the Midwest United States, namely Chicago, Illinois

Dates the Crimes: Due to the expansiveness of Al Capone’s criminal activity, the determination of his first crime still remains under speculation; however, his assumed masterminding of the murder of 7 known members of a rival criminal organization on February 14th, 1929 in Chicago was considered to be one of the most notorious gang-related crimes in the history of the United States – this is known as ‘The Valentine’s Day Massacre’

Criminal Charges: Smuggling and Racketeering; he was never charged with his presumed involvement in the Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago, Illinois

Date of the Trial: 1931

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

Subsequent to an extensive investigation led by famed Federal Bureau of Prohibition Agent Elliot Ness with regard to Al Capone’s criminal activity and illegal smuggling enterprise, which began in 1929, he was arrested on charges of tax evasion

Frank J. Wilson, the head of Department of Taxation in the United States conducted an audit with regard to Al Capone’s finances subsequent to the findings set forth by Ness’s investigation; Wilson’s audit reflected a multitude of tax evasion charges with regard to the presumed smuggling undertaken by Al Capone

Subsequent to his arrest in 1931, Al Capone had pled guilty to the tax evasion charges served to him; however, Al Capone had planned to bribe the jury members of his trial, which resulted in a redaction of his guilty plea

Capone’s foiled attempt to bribed the jurors of his trial – a plot uncovered by Elliot Ness – resulted in a complete replacement of the entirety of the jury, which prolonged Al Capone’s trial even further

Victims:  Al Capone’s crime were described as criminal acts undermining the safety and security of the entirety of the United States citizenship

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

Al Capone was charged for smuggling and bootlegging in spite the statues of prohibition set forth within the United States of America as expressed within the 18th Amendment to the Constitution; as a result, his crimes were tried within a Federal legal jurisdiction

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (RICO) is a legislative act passed by the Federal Government in order to quell the activity, formation, and proliferation of organized crime in the United States of America, both on commercial and financial levels

Verdict Delivered: 1931

Punishment and Conviction: Al Capone was sentenced to 11 years in prison; he served 9 of those years in various prisons prior to his parole

The Background of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

Teacher Susan Epperson was hired to teach Science to High School Students; in accordance to Arkansas legislature with regard to the instruction of evolution, she abstained from including the theory of evolution within her studies. However, upon the receipt of an updated textbook, she had noticed that the curriculum as expressed within the textbooks included the theory of evolution; as a result, Epperson found herself in what she had perceived as an unconstitutional circumstance in which she would be forced to choose between defying Arkansas legislature or removal from her position due to her refusal to adhere to the expressed curriculum.

A statute passed by the State government of Arkansas in 1928 stated that the instruction of evolution within the public school system in the State of Arkansas was to be prohibited

The Establishment Clause within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States requires that outlaws 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 Epperson v. Arkansas

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

Date of the Trial: October 16th, 1968

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

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Susan Epperson against the State of Arkansas within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Epperson explained that with regard to her 1st Amendment Rights, the inability to include the theory of evolution within her lesson plan was not only a violation of the freedom of expression, but also a violation of the separation of the church from the State

Furthermore, Epperson explained that a choice between conducting illegal activity or losing her position was a violation of her 14th Amendment Rights, infringing on her individual ‘pursuit of happiness’

United States Reports Case Number: 393 U.S. 97

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: November 12th, 1968

Legal Venue of Epperson v. Arkansas: 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 Epperson v. Arkansas case:

Susan Epperson; Plaintiff –

The State of Arkansas; Defendant –

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Arkansas State legislature forbidding the instruction of evolution, claiming that the statute violated the prohibition of any enforcement of religious viewpoints considered to infringe on the freedom of speech and the right to free expression

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

The 1st Amendment states that he 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

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