Who is Nelson Mandela?

Nelson Mandela, born on July 18, 1918, served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. Nelson Mandela, when elected, became the first South African president to be elected in a fully representative democratic environment. Before elected, Nelson Mandela was a staunch anti-apartheid activist and the leader of the armed wing of the African National Congress.

Nelson Mandela’s Arrest and Prison Sentence:

In 1962, Nelson Mandela was arrested and subsequently convicted of sabotage and various other charges. Nelson Mandela, as a result of these charges, was sentenced to life in prison. After serving 27 years in prison, Nelson Mandela was released on February 11 of 1990. Following his release, Nelson Mandela led his newly-formed political party in negotiations that ultimately led to the creation of a multi-racial democracy in South Africa. Nelson Mandela was a political activist who fought for the equal rights of the black majority. Often oppressed, the black community in South Africa was stripped of basic privileges, such as participating in elections, that were commonly enjoyed by their fellow white citizens.

In 1961, Nelson Mandela became leader of the armed wing branch of government. Through this organization, Nelson Mandela, coordinated sabotage campaigns against various military and government targets. These campaigns were initiated by Nelson Mandela as a plan to militarize and possible establish a military action to end the apartheid. The military actions proposed by Nelson Mandela never intended to inflict violence on citizens or people, but instead, on symbolic places, such as post offices and government offices, of apartheid. This armed movement was a last resort for Nelson Mandela that was prompted by years of repression and violence from the government; Nelson Mandela, after engaging in years of non-violent protest against apartheid realized that only military actions or symbolic destruction could achieve progress.

On August 5, 1962 Nelson Mandela was arrested after fleeing the authorities for seventeen months. When Nelson Mandela was finally caught, he was imprisoned in the Johannesburg Fort. The arrest was sparked due to the United States’ Central intelligence Agency; the CIA tipped of the security agency as the Mandela’s disguise and whereabouts. Three days after receiving the CIA’s tips, Nelson Mandela was found and subsequently charged with leading a revolt and formulating worker strikes, in addition to leaving the country illegal. On October 5, 1962, Nelson Mandela was sentenced to five years in prison.

While in prison, Nelson Mandela’s reputation grew to the point where he eventually became known as the most significant black leader and voice in South Africa.

Nelson Mandela’s Life after Prison:

Mandela was released from Victor Verster Prison in Paarl, South Africa on 11 February 1990. Mandela’s release was broadcast throughout the world and quickly was regarded as a landmark movement to end apartheid and unite the black and white community of South Africa.

On the day of his release, Nelson mandela made a speech to the entire nation; Mandela declared his commitment to peace and reconciliation with South Africa’s white minority, but it made it clear, that the armed organization’s plot and overall development was a defensive necessity to end apartheid. As a result of this statement, Nelson Mandela let the people of his nation know that the armed organization would continue to develop so long as the climate remained shaky. In this speech, Nelson Mandela also stated that his main focus was to bring peace to the black majority and give them the right to vote in both national and local elections.

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.

The Background of Leopold and Loeb:

Richard Loeb (born June 11, 1905-January 28, 1936) and Nathan Leopold (born November 19, 1904-August 29, 1971), commonly known as “Leopold and Loeb” were two upper-class University of Chicago students who murdered a 14 year old boy, Robert Franks, in 1924.

Leopold and Loeb were motivated to murder the youth to fulfill their desire to commit the perfect crime. Leopold, 19 and Loeb 18, at the time of the murder, believed themselves to be intellectually-capable of committing the “perfect murder.” Leopold was a child prodigy, who reportedly had an IQ of 210 and Leopold, who already had graduated college, was attending law school at the University of Chicago.

The Leopold and Loeb Murder:

Leopold, Loeb, and the victim, Franks, lived on the south side of Chicago in a wealthy Jewish neighborhood. Leopold and Loeb spent seven months spent nearly seven months planning the murder; they worked out a way to get ransom money with minimal risk of being caught. The plan was initiated when Leopold and Loeb, lured Franks into the passenger seat of the rented car; Leopold drove the car, while Loeb sat in the back with the murder weapon.

One of the men then struck Franks with a chisel; the men then stuffed a sock into Franks’ mouth—the boy died shortly afterwards. Leopold and Loeb then covered the body and drove to a remote area to leave Franks’ body (after disrobing him) in a culvert near the Pennsylvania Railroad Tracks.

When Leopold and Loeb returned to Chicago they notified Frank’s mother that her son had been kidnapped. They mailed the Franks’ a ransom note; however, the body of Robert Franks was shortly discovered after the mailing of the ransom note. While searching for evidence, Detective Hugh Byrne discovered a pair of eyeglasses near the body—the glasses had a rare mechanism that only three people in Chicago possesses, one of whom was Nathan Leopold.

When Leopold and Loeb were questioned, their alibis ultimately fell apart and although their confessions corroborated the majority of the facts in the case, each blamed the other for the killing.

Leopold and Loeb Trial:

The Leopold and Loeb trial became a media spectacle; the review of the Leopold and Loeb murder was dubbed the trial of the century.

During the Leopold and Loeb trial, Clarence Darrow—the attorney for the two men—had his clients plead guilty to avoid a jury trial. Darrow avoided the trial, which would have invariably resulted in the death sentence, to make his case for his clients’ lives to be heard before a single person—Cook County Circuit Court Judge John Caverly.

During the 12-hour hearing on the final day of the Leopold and Loeb trail, Darrow successfully argued that the two men committed the murder as a result of their advanced teachings; in essence the men assumed the lives of “broken machines.” The speech, which is regarded as Darrow’s finest, ultimately saved the men’s life, for Leopold and Loeb were sentenced to life in prison for the kidnapping and subsequent murder of Robert Franks.