The Background of Nix v. Williams

Williams was arrested and charged with murder for allegedly killing a ten year-old girl whose body he disposed of along a gravel road. State law enforcement agency engaged in a thorough and massive search for the child’s body. During the search, after responding to a law enforcement agent’s appeal for assistance, Williams offered statements to the police, without the presence of at attorney, which ultimately helped the searchers to the child’s corpse. In this instance, the defendant’s Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest and not before it. As a result of this violation of protocol and the rights awarded in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States had to review the evidence obtained in alignment with such a violation. The primary question that the Supreme Court evaluated was whether or not evidence resulting in an arrest is excluded from trial because it was improperly obtained.

The Supreme Court of the United States in Nix v. Williams ultimately stated that in this instance, Williams’s conviction was upheld due to “inevitable discovery doctrine.” This provision held that the exclusionary rule (the termination of evidence due to the fraudulent nature of which it was obtained) did not apply to this particular case, because the child’s body was viewed as evidence itself and it was clear that the search would have resulted in the discovery of the body even if Williams never offered the statements to the authorities.

Inevitable discovery is a doctrine found in the United States’ criminal procedure, which allows evidence of a defendant’s guilt (that would otherwise be considered inadmissible under the exclusionary rule) to be admitted as reputable and fair in a trial. This doctrine was adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams in 1984 and holds that any evidence obtained in a violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights is admissible in court if it can be state, that a normal police investigation would have discovered the underlying evidence. The rational for this doctrine is that police misconduct is deterred and the interests of the general society are better served by putting law enforcement agents in the same position that they would have otherwise been in without the rights violation.

The Case Profile of Nix v. Williams

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

Date of the Trial: Nix V. Williams was decided in 1984

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

Legal Venue of Nix v. Williams: United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Who is Jack Kevorkian?

Jack Kevorkian, born on May 26th of 1928, is a pathologist and prominent right-to-die activist. Jack Kevorkian, also known as the “Doctor of Death”, is most infamously known for publicly championing an individual’s–who is stricken with a terminal illness—right to die through a physician-assisted suicide.

Jack Kevorkian was a proponent for Euthanasia, which is a willing administration of a deadly gas or injection to end an individual’s life. Jack Kevorkian offered these services to patients who were suffering from incurable and painful diseases; the patients who Jack Kevorkian served wished to die as oppose to suffer from their ailment.

Between 1990 and 1998, Doctor Jack Kevorkian assisted in the deaths of 130 terminally ill individuals. In each of these assisted deaths, the individuals themselves allegedly took the final action that ultimately precipitated their own deaths. These actions revolved around turning on a poisonous gas or injecting themselves with a poisonous agent of some sort. Doctor Jack Kevorkian’s, as a result of the patient’s actions, only attached the individual to the device—which he made—that caused the patient to die. The patient, after being equipped with the device, would then push a button that released the chemicals or drugs into their system. Only 2 of Kevorkian’s 130 assisted-suicide cases were delivered through a mechanical intravenous.

Kevorkian Trials:

For his role in assisting suicide, Jack Kevorkian was tried numerous times; typically these trials and convictions took place in Oakland County, Michigan. Before executing the euthanasia, Jack Kevorkian required all of his patients to give full consent before the procedure could commence. The deaths were merciful killings, meaning they were agreed upon by the patient to end the suffering caused by an incurable disease.

On March 26, 1999 Jack Kevorkian was charged with second-degree murder and the delivery of a controlled substance—on a live broadcast in September of 1998, Jack Kevorkian, following the consent of Thomas Kourk (a patient in the final stages of ALS), administered the merciful killing himself. In addition to the fact that Kevorkian himself injected Kourk, Kevorkian’s medical license had been revoked eight years prior; through this suspension he was not legally allowed to possess any controlled substances.

During the trial Kevorkian represented himself. The Michigan jury ultimately found Kevorkian guilty of second-degree homicide—it was proven that Kevorkian had directly killed a person because Youk was physically unable to administer the injection himself. The Judge, upon the conviction, sentenced Kevorkian to 10-25 years in a Coldwater, Michigan prison.

Kevorkian’s release:

Following years of good behavior, Jack Kevorkian received parole on June 1, 2007—Kevorkian, in total, spent eight years and 3 months in prison. At the time of his release, Oregon was the only state in America to legally allow for the assisted killing of terminally-ill patients.

The Background of Kyllo v. the United States:

Kyllo v. United States is a landmark Supreme Court Case, which ultimately stated that the use of a thermal imaging device—from a public vantage point—to monitor the emission of heat radiation from an individual’s home is legally regarded as a “search.” Through this classification, the use of a thermal imaging device is regulated by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and thus requires the obtainment of a warrant.

The case of Kyllo v. United States revolves around a situation where the Department of the Interior used a thermal imaging device outside of the private residence of Danny Kyllo. The evidentiary hearing in the District County Court stated that the imaging device could not penetrate the home’s walls or windows to reveal any human interactions or record any conversation. The device, upon use, showed that there was an unusual amount of heat radiating from the side walls and roof of the garage. This information was ultimately used to obtain a search warrant where federal agents later discovered over 100 marijuana plants growing in Kyllo’s home.

Danny Kyllo was charged with growing marijuana in his Oregon residence. Kyllo appealed the charges in the Ninth Circuit Court by stating that the observations (obtained through the use of a thermal-imaging device) constituted a formal search under the Fourth Amendment. Although the conviction was upheld at the Court of Appeals, Kyllo petitioned a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court.

 Kyllo v. United States Trial

In Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the thermal imaging device used to monitor Kyllo’s home constituted a search and thus required a warrant before the device was used. Since the law enforcement agents did not have a warrant when the imaging device was used, the search was ruled unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.

The Case Profile of Kyllo v. United States:

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

Date of the Trial: Kyllo v. United States was argued on February 20, 2001

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

United States Reports Case Number: 533 U.S. 27

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Kyllo v. United States was decided on June 11 2001

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rhenquist

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

In Kyllo v. United States, Danny Kyllo was the plaintiff and the State of Oregon was the defendant.

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in Kyllo v. United States ruled that the use of a thermal imaging device to monitor an individual’s home constitutes a Fourth Amendment “search” and may be accomplished only with the obtainment of a warrant.

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

The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution requires a search warrant to obtain by law enforcement agencies when conducting any surveillance or investigatory techniques that are constituted as searches under the 4th Amendment.

Who is Larry Flynt?

Larry Flynt is an American publisher and the President of Larry Flynt Publications—a company that predominantly produces sexually graphic magazines and videos, most notably Hustler.

The Creation of Hustler:

In March 1972, Larry Flynt created the Hustler Newsletter¬—a four-page, black and white publication that promoted his various clubs that featured naked hostesses who danced. The newsletter eventually became so popular with his customers that Larry Flynt decided to expand the Hustler Newsletter to 32 pages in August of 1973. When the oil crisis of 1973 struck, the revenues of the Hustler club, along with the American economy, significantly dissipated. Instead of refinancing his debts or declaring bankruptcy, Larry Flynt decided to turn the Hustler Newsletter into a full-fledged sexually explicit magazine with national distribution.

In July of 1974, the first issue of Hustler was published. The magazine proved to be a hit; within the first year of publishing, Hustler amassed enough attention and revenue for Larry Flynt to pay off all of his debts and offset his losses that were sparked by the failing economy.

Due to the aggressive and highly-sexual material in the Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt had to routinely fight with distributors and publishers for his magazine to be published. These struggles, although discouraging, did not stop Flynt from producing his magazine. While the magazine was gaining attention, Flynt was approached by a paparazzo who had obtained nude pictures of former First Lad Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis. Flynt eventually purchased the nude picture for $18,000 and published the photos in the August 1975 issue of Hustler Magazine. With the photos of Onassis in the magazine, that particular issue attracted widespread attention; over 1 million copies were sold within a few days.

As a result of the magazine’s success, Larry Flynt amassed millions of dollars and international notoriety for his propensity to produce and mass-distribute lewd material.

Larry Flynt Legal battles:

Larry Flynt has long been embroiled in numerous legal battles regarding the regulations of free speech and pornography present in the United States’ judicial system. Larry Flynt was first prosecuted on organized crime and obscenity charged in Cincinnati in 1976; Larry Flynt although sentenced to 25 years in prison he only served six days due to a technicality latent in the trial.

In 1988, Larry Flynt won a crucial Supreme Court decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. This trial was initiated when Larry Flynt was sued by Reverend Jerry Falwell in 1983 over an offensive parody in Hustler that depicted Falwell’s first sexual encounter with his own mother in an out-house. Falwell, enraged by this depiction, sued Flynt for emotional distress. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Larry Flynt, by stating public figures cannot seek retribution or recover damages for “intentional infliction of emotional distress” based on parodies or unrealistic depictions.

The Background of Lau v. Nichols:

Lau v. Nichols was a landmark civil rights case that was initiated by Chinese American students who lived in San Francisco, California. The students, who had limited English proficiency, claimed that were not receiving special help in their various classes. The students argued that they were denied aid primarily due to their inability to speak English; the students stated they were entitled to such aid under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that effectively placed a ban on educational discrimination on the basis of national origin.

The students claimed that the schools lacked appropriate accommodations that ultimately denied them from receiving equal educational opportunities on the basis of their ethnicity.

Lau v. Nichols Trial:

In 1974, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students; this ruling ultimately expanded the rights of students nationwide who possessed an inability to fluently speak English. The Supreme Court of the United States stated that these students shall be treated with equality among all schools throughout the nation.

The decision in Lau v. Nichols remains a landmark decision that is closely aligned with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Lau v. Nichols is frequently relied upon and raised as a precedent in many similar cases.

The Case Profile of Lau v. Nichols:

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

Date of the Trial: Lau v. Nichols was argued on December 10, 1973

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: 414 U.S. 563

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Lau v. Nichols was decided on January 21, 1974

Legal Venue of Lau v. Nichols: The United States Supreme Court

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

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court of the United States in Lau v. Nichols ruled that public schools, based on the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, must treat all students equally regardless of their language; therefore, students who are incapable of speaking English must be awarded resources to facilitate their learning.

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

Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Who was Lenny Bruce?

Lenny Bruce, born October 13, 1925 was a Jewish-American stand-up comedian. After studying acting, he performed stand-up routines in various nightclubs throughout the United States in the 1950s. His act was a hit across the nations through a developing style marked by black humor and punctuated with severe obscenities. As he gained notoriety, Lenny Bruce focused his act on material criticisms aimed at various social and legal establishments, as well as organized religion and other controversial topics. Lenny Bruce died of a drug overdose in Hollywood California on August, 3rd 1966, but is still remembered as a trend-setting comedian and an activist for free speech.

Lenny Bruce’s Legal Battles:

On October 4th, 1961, Lenny Bruce was arrested for obscenity; his act at the Jazz Workshop in San Francisco had used foul language and was laced in egregious sexual undertones. Although the jury ultimately acquitted Lenny Bruce of the charges, other law enforcement organizations began monitoring his acts throughout the nation. As a result of these monitoring efforts, Lenny Bruce was arrested several times for charges stemming from obscenity.

Following these arrests, Lenny Bruce became a controversial individual and was routinely surveyed by law enforcement agencies. The increased scrutiny eventually led to an arrest in Philadelphia, where the local police department found Lenny Bruce in possession of drugs. Lenny Bruce was subsequently arrested for drug possession in Los Angeles, California nearly two years later.

In April of 1964, while performing in Greenwich Village, New York, undercover police detectives in the audience arrested Lenny Bruce for using various obscenities in his act. A three judge panel presided over the publicized trial that ensued from these arrests. Lenny Bruce and club owner, Howard Solomon, were both found guilty of obscenity on November 4, 1964. Lenny Bruce was sentenced on December 21st, 1964 to four months in a workhouse; Lenny Bruce was eventually set free on bail during the appeals process and died before the appeal was ruled.

Although Lenny Bruce was seemingly involved in perpetual legal battles, he garnered the support of several prominent entertainers as well as the general public, who viewed Lenny Bruce’s act as an exercise of free speech and thus a Constitutional right.

On December 23rd, 2003, Lenny Bruce was granted a posthumous pardon for his obscenity conviction. The pardon was issued by New York Governor George Pataki, 37 years after his death caused by a drug overdose.

Who is Leo Frank?

Leo Frank, born April 17, 1884, was a Jewish-American businessman who was lynched by a party of prominent citizens in Marietta Georgia. The vicious and hateful treatment of Leo Frank and his subsequent lynching turned a spotlight on anti-Semitism and hateful acts based on religious beliefs in the United States. The lynching of Leo Frank ultimately led to the founding of the Anti-Defamation League.

The Mary Phagan Murder:

Mary Phagan was a young girl who worked in a mill that was operated by her family. Phagan left school at the age of 10 to assume a job at the mill. After working in the mill, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where ran machines that inserted rubber erasers into the pencils’ metal bands.

Mary Phagan worked in the metal room, down the hall from Leo Frank’s office. Around noon on April 27th, the factory’s security guard went to the factory basement to use the facilities where he discovered the dead body of Mary Phagan. Her body was savagely beatn, and a seven foot strip of wrapping cord was tied around the young girl’s neck.

There were two notes found next to Phagan’s head. The notes, which were written in gibberish, were believed to a ploy to falsely accuse the black security guard who discovered the body.

When the guard was interviewed on suspicion of leaving the note, the authorities realized that the man was not the murdered. With no murder suspect in hand, the suspicion gradually fell on Leo Frank. The authorities believed that Frank was the culprit because he had developed a flirtatious relationship with Phagan and was extremely nervous when questioned.

The Leo Frank Trial:

On July 28, 1913 the murder trial commenced in a Georgia courtroom. Leo Frank was represented by eight lawyers. The prosecution’s predominant theory cited that Leo Frank was the murdered and the murder notes were dictated by Frank to an African-American janitor to effectively pin the crime on the man. The janitor, who was kept in custody and questioned by police, changed his story multiple times but finally claimed that Leo Frank promised him $200 dollars to write the notes.

Leo Frank’s defense team brought numerous witnesses who affirmed Frank’s alibi, which ultimately did not leave enough time for Leo Frank to commit the murder.

On August 25, Leo Frank was convicted of murder. Shocked by the verdict, Leo Frank appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court denied this appeal as a writ of habeas corpus sought by Frank’s lawyers. Months later, William Smith, the lawyer for the African American janitor announced that he believed that his client had murdered Phagan. A writ of error was issued, which allowed Leo Frank to appeal the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal in April of 1915. On April 19, the appeal was denied on a 7-2 vote. Originally Leo Frank was sentenced to death, but after further review of the evidence the governor of Georgia commuted Frank’s sentence to life in prison.

The Lynching of Leo Frank:

A group of prominent men in Georgia organized themselves into a group called the “Knight of Mary Phagan”. The men recruited 25 to 28 other men, who possessed necessary skills, to effectively kidnap Leo Frank from prison in hopes of lynching him.

On the afternoon of August 16, eight cars arrived at the prison shortly before midnight. The team executed an elaborate plan to remove Leo Frank from prison; when they got to Leo Frank they handcuffed him and tied his ankles together. They removed Leo Frank from jail and hung him from a tree that faced Mary Phagan’s home. Several hundreds of people viewed the lynching for they assumed Leo Frank was the murderer.

Nearly seventy years later, in 1982, Alonzo Mann, who was Frank’s office boy, told the authorities that he had seen the janitor alone at the factory, carrying Phagan’s dead body.

Who is Leonard Peltier?

Leonard Peltier is a prominent member of the American Indian Movement and a passionate American activist. In 1977, Leonard Peltier was convicted and subsequently sentenced to two consecutive life sentences aiding and abetting the execution of two FBI agents.

The executions of the FBI agents took place during a 1975 shootout on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

The Shootout:

On June 26th of 1975, Special Agents Ronald Williams and Jack Coler of the Federal Bureau of Investigation were pursuing a young Pine Ridge resident named Jimmy Eagle. The FBI agents were in search of Eagle, because the young man was connected with a recent assault and robbery that took place on the ranch.

During their pursuit, both agents (driving separate unmarked cars) began following a red truck that matched the description of Eagle’s vehicle. At this time, Leonard Peltier had a warrant for his arrest that was issued in Milwaukee, Wisconsin for attempted murder chargers—Leonard Peltier was a fugitive for his role in the attempted murder of an off-duty Milwaukee police officer.

While following the red truck, Williams and Coler came under heavy gun fire from the occupants of targeted vehicle. When the agents called for reinforcement, the back-up agents were also fired upon. Late in the afternoon, local authorities found the bodies of Williams and Coler inside their vehicle—the two men were fatally shot.

At 6:30 p.m. special agents and the local authorities ignited tear gas and raided the homes of the ranch. Although the raid effectively usurped the location, the gunmen had fled the premises. 

Aftermath of the Shootout:

On September 9, 1975 Leonard Peltier purchased a vehicle outside of Denver, Colorado. The FBI sent out descriptions of the vehicle in which Leonard Peltier and his associated were believed to be caravanning in. An Oregon State Police Officer stopped the vehicles based on the descriptions and ordered the driver of the caravan to exit. Leonard Peltier, who was the driver of the pulled-over vehicle, refused to comply with the orders and instead fired at the trooper. After exchanging gunfire, Leonard Peltier escaped on foot. In the following months, Leonard Peltier assumed residences throughout the western part of the United States and Canada.

Leonard Peltier was eventually arrested and extradited from Alberta, Canada on February 6, 1976. Leonard Peltier was arrested, through the issuance of an affidavit, offered by a Native American woman who claimed to be Peltier’s girlfriend.

Leonard Peltier Trial:

Leonard Peltier was initially tried in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. The jury convicted Leonard Peltier of the murders of both special agents (Coler and Williams). These convictions carried two consecutive life sentences. Following the delivery of these convictions, Leonard Peltier appealed the decision, where a Federal appeals Judge claimed that the evidence (particularly the bullets that were recovered from the scene) was overwhelming.

Leonard Peltier admitted that he fired at the agents but denies that he delivered the fatal shots. Leonard Peltier is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.

Who is Lizzie Borden?

Lizzie Borden was born in 1860 to an upper-class family in Fall River, Massachusetts. Lizzie Borden was a New England spinster who is infamous for her alleged role in a savage murder. Lizzie Borden, whose mother died when she was a youth, was extremely fond of her successful father who raised her with unconditional love.

The Gruesome Murders:

On August 4th, 1892, Andrew Borden (Lizzie’s father) returned home at around 10:45 a.m. after running his routine errands around tine. Around 11:15 a.m. Lizzie Borden discovered her father’s body savagely disfigured on the family couch.

Shortly after discovering her father’s corpse, Bridget Sullivan—the Borden’s twenty-six year old maid—discovered the dead body of Abby Borden (Lizzie’s Stepmom) in the guest bedroom. Both Andrew and Abby were killed by crushing blows to their skulls from a hatchet—Andrew Borden’s body was massacred in such a way that the incident was described as “the crime of the century.” The murders remain famous to this day because of the lack of evidence, the inconsistencies during trial, the savageness of the slayings, and the media coverage surrounding the trial.

Motives and Methods Surrounding the Murders:

The two Borden sisters grew frustrated with their father when he decided to create a will that would effectively divide the family’s assets and valuable properties among relatives. Lizzie Borden’s stepmother, whom both girls despised, was the primary beneficiary of this will. As a result of his financial success and cold demeanor, Andrew Borden was disliked around town.

Shortly before the murders took place, the entire Borden household became violently ill. Due to his unpopularity, Abby Borden believed that citizens of Fall River were attempting to poison Andrew and the Borden family. Although this seemed somewhat logical, autopsies and samplings of the family’s food revealed now traces of toxins or poisonous materials.

The Borden Trial:

Lizzie Borden was arrested and sentenced to jail on August 11, 1982. During a police investigation of the Borden household, the police found the murder weapon (a hatchet) in the family’s basement. Although no blood-soaked clothing was found at the scene, Lizzie Borden tore apart and burned a dress in the family’s kitchen stove—Borden claimed she burnt the dress because she had brushed up against fresh baseboard paint. As a result of inconclusive links to Borden, the young woman was originally acquitted from the charges.

After the trial, Emma and Lizzie Borden moved to a new home in Fall River. The girls gave Abby’s family everything they wanted to avoid further lawsuits. The two sisters eventually grew apart due to changes in lifestyle. Following a surgical procedure, Lizzie fell ill and eventually died of pneumonia on June 1, 1927. The Lizzie Borden murder case still remains a mystery. As a result of the gruesomeness and overall ambiguity enshrouding the case, several theories have arisen to elucidate upon the guilty party. One such theory pins the murders on Sullivan, while others claim that Lizzie Borden indeed was the killer.