Famous Trials

Roth v. United States

Roth v. United StatesThe Background of Roth v. United States

Roth v. United States was a landmark case heard before the United States Supreme Court. In Roth v. United States, the United States Supreme Court redefined the United States Constitutional test that was used to determine what constitutes obscene material that was left unprotected by the First Amendment.

Samuel Roth ran a literary business in New York City and was convicted under a federal statute for sending obscene, lewd, or filthy materials through the mail for advertising a publication titled American Aphrodite.

Roth v. United States Trial:

Roth v. United States was decided as a 6-3 decision; the Court defined obscenity as material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Only material that meets this test could be labeled and subsequently banned as being “obscene.”

In 1973, in the Supreme Court Case Miller v. California, a five-person majority agreed on the creation of a test for determining constitutionally unprotected obscenity—this test effectively superseded the Roth test.

The Case Profile of Roth v. United States

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

Date of the Trial: Roth v. United States was argued on April 22 1957.

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: 354 U.S. 476

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Roth v. United States was decided on June 24, 1957

Legal Venue of Roth v. United States: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Verdict Delivered: In Roth v. United States the courts stated that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. In addition to this ruling, the United States Supreme Court created a test that would more accurately and strictly define “obscene materials.”

Tokyo Rose Against the Allies

Tokyo Rose Against the AlliesWho is Tokyo Rose?

Tokyo Rose was the alias or generic name given by Allied forces that fought in the South Pacific during the Second World War to any English-speaking female broadcasters who transmitted or spread Japanese propaganda. The intent of the broadcasts was to infiltrate and ultimately disrupt the morale of Allied forces who were tuning in.

American soldiers, who were stationed in the Pacific, typically listened to the propaganda spread by Tokyo Rose to get a feel for the effect that their fighting had on the Japanese public and media outlets. In most instances, the stories and reports circulated by Tokyo Rose would be bizarrely accurate; often times, Tokyo Rose reporters would name units and even individual soldiers who were stationed throughout the Pacific. Although these reports are often linked to Tokyo Rose, they have never been substantiated through the delivery of formal documentation, such as written scripts or recorded broadcasts.

Where did the name “Tokyo Rose” come from?

The nickname “Tokyo Rose” was derived from Iva Toguri who was broadcasted under the name “Oprah Ann” during a 15-20 segment that was aired on the program The Zero Hour and broadcasted on Radio Tokyo. The program mainly consisted of propaganda-based skits and slanted news reports that were intended to discourage American servicemen from continuing their mission and strong efforts.

The real “Tokyo Rose”:

Although Tokyo Rose was used as a nickname for a group of women who broadcasted propaganda throughout the Second World War, one woman in particular was thought to be the original Tokyo Rose. This individual, Iva Ikuko Toguri, was eventually tried and sentenced to ten years in prison by the United States government for engaging in espionage against the military forces of the country.

Toguri was an American citizen, who was visiting relatives in Japan, when the savage fighting in the Pacific commenced. Despite daily harassment from military police, Toguri refused to give up her United States citizenship; under this intense pressure, Toguri ultimately landed a job working with Radio Tokyo where she was forced to spew propaganda.

Radio Tokyo eventually wanted a female voice to broadcast its “news”. Using the name, Orphan Ann, Toguri—who was one of many English speaking women forced to broadcast—was chosen as the predominant anchor for Radio Tokyo.

The Arrest of Tokyo Rose:

Following the end of the war, reporters travelled to Japan to interview Toguri in hopes of revealing her true identity. At some point during this interview process, Toguri signed an official statement saying that she was indeed Tokyo Rose. In 1945, Toguri was imprisoned in Japan by the United States government. In 1948, Toguri was extradited to the United States where she eventually stood trial for treason. In 1949, Toguri was convicted on eight counts of treason and sentenced to ten years in prison. Toguri was eventually released after six years of good behavior.

The Kidnapping of Patty Hearst

The Kidnapping of Patty HearstWho is Patty Hearst?

Patty Hearst, born February 20, 1954, is an American socialite, actress, American newspaper heiress, kidnap victim and convicted bank robber. Patty Hearst was the granddaughter of publishing giant William Randolph Hearst.

Patty Hearst Kidnapping:

On February 4, 1974, Patty Hearst, at 19 years of age, was kidnapped from her California apartment that she shared with her fiancé Steven Weed. Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the left-wing urban guerrilla organization called the Symbionese Liberation Army. This organization kidnapped Patty Hearst because they wanted their fellow members freed from jail; when this swap attempt failed, the SLA demanded that Hearst’s family distribute $70 worth of food to every needy person in California—a demand that would cost the Hearst family around $400 million.

In response to these demands, Hearst’s father agreed to donate $6 million to the poor of the San Francisco area. Following the distribution, the SLA refused to release Patty Hearst because they deemed the food as of possessing poor quality. On April 3, 1974, Patty Hearst announced, on a video tape, that she had joined the SLA.

As a member of the SLA, Patty Hearst robbed the Sunset District branch of the Hibernia Bank in San Francisco. Following this action, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Patty Hearst. In September of 1975, Patty Hearst was arrested in a San Francisco apartment along with numerous SLA members.

In a series of jail interviews, Patty Hearst echoed the ideology of the SLA and reiterated her desire to carry-out the intended goals of the guerilla group. Various doctors and psychologists agreed that Patty Hearst was a classic victim of Stockholm syndrome; these medical professionals believed that Patty Hurst was effectively brainwashed by members of the SLA.

The Patty Hearst Trial:

On January 15, 1975 the Patty Hearst trial commenced. During the trial, Hearst’s attorney claimed that patty Hearst was blindfolded, imprisoned and sexually abused. Her defense team claimed that the actions committed by patty Hearst were the result of a systematic brainwashing program. The prosecuting team, in turn, claimed that Patty Hearst’s involvement in the SLA’s bank robbery was an “act of free will.”

The Patty Hearst Conviction:

During the trial Patty Hearst maintained her loyalty to SLA, by refusing to give information concerning the lead members of the operation. Patty Hearst was formally convicted of bank robbery on March 20, 1975. Although she was originally sentenced to 35 years in prison, Patty Hearst’s sentence was later reduced to seven years.

Following 22 months of serving prison time, Patty Hearst was released from prison on February 1, 1979. She was later granted a full pardon by President Bill Clinton on January 20, 2001.

Tony Alamo: The Notorious Cult Leader

Tony Alamo: The Notorious Cult LeaderWho is Tony Alamo?

Tony Alamo is a notorious American cult leader and convicted sex offender. Tony Alamo, along with his deceased wife, Susan Alamo, is most well-known as the founders of an organization that is currently known as the Tony Alamo Christian Ministry. The organization, which has been widely referred to as a cult, is based in Arkansas. On July 24th of 2009, Tony Alamo was convicted on ten counts of interstate transportation of underage girls for illegal sexual purposes, such as, sexual assault, rape and the overall contribution to the delinquency and exploitation of minors. On November 13th of 2009, Tony Alamo was sentenced to the maximum punishment of 175 years in a super maximum facility.

Tony Alamo Illegal Activities:

On September 20th of 2008, numerous federal and state investigating agents raided the Arkansas headquarters of Tony Alamo’s ministry—which was a 15 acre compound near Texarkana Arkansas. This massive investigation was conducted by the FBI as well as other law enforcement agencies as a child pornography sting. Alamo, who was alleged to participate in numerous illegal acts revolving around exploiting and sexually abusing children, was eventually arrested in Arizona on September 25th of 2008. Tony Alamo’s arrest stemmed from a federal warrant that was issued out of Texarkana, Arkansas for charges revolving around the illegal transportation of minors over state lines for sexual activity.

In October of 2008, Tony Alamo’s former followers testified in court, stating that Tony Alamo had practiced polygamy and had married an eight-year-old girl. These new counts were attached to Tony Alamo’s previous indictments for taking minor girls across state lines for sex.

On July, 28th of 2009, following his conviction, Tony Alamo claimed that he was “just another one of the prophets that went to jail for the Gospel.” On January 13th of 2010, while Tony Alamo sit in prison, each of the five girls who testified to sexual abuse administered by Alamo, were awarded $500,000 in restitution, for a total judgment of $2.5 million. 


The Mann Act:

Tony Alamo was arrested based on egregious violations of the Mann Act. Also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act, the Mann Act is a United States federal law which prohibits individual from transporting females for immoral purposes or from participating in white slavery. The primary intent of the Mann Act was to address immorality, prostitution and human trafficking that took place within the United States. The most common use of the Mann Act was used to punish and prosecute men who were guilty of having sex with underage women.

Powell v. Alabama

Powell v. Alabama



The Background of Powell v. Alabama:

Powell v. Alabama was a United Supreme Court case that ultimately determined that in a capital trial, the defending party must be given access to legal counsel upon his or her request. The defendant, in all capital cases, as stated in this decision, labels the obtainment of a counsel as a direct part of due process, which is inherently awarded to a defending party in the United States Constitution.

Powell v. Alabama stems from events that occurred in March of 1931. During this time, Nine African Americans (Ozie Powell, Charlie Weems, Clarence Norris, Willie Roberson, Haywood Patterson, Andy Wright, Olen Montgomery, Eugene Williams, Leroy Wright), known as the Scottsboro Boys, were accused of raping two young Caucasian women, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates.

The Scottsboro Boys were travelling on a train with seven white males and two white males. A fight eventually broke out and all of the Caucasian males were thrown from the train, save for one individual. The women ultimately accused the African American men of rape; however, one woman later retracted this claim. Each of the defendants, with the exception of Roy Wright, was sentenced to death in a series of one-day trials.

The Trial:

The defendants (the Scottsboro Boys) in Powell v. Alabama were only given access to their lawyers right before the trial commenced; the lack of time impeded the defendants from developing a defense strategy. Although the sentence was handed down, the ruling was ultimately appealed on the grounds that the defendants in Powell v. Alabama were not provided with adequate legal counsel.

This ruling was an appeal; the original case was heard in the Alabama State Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court, in Powell v. Alabama, ruled 6-1 that the trial was fair—this ruling was ultimately appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court, in Powell v. Alabama, reversed and remanded the decisions of the Alabama Supreme Court, stating that due process had been violated. The ruling offered by the United States Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama, offered three main arguments to appeal the previous decision: “The defendants in Powell v. Alabama were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial. They were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and the opportunity for trial and they were tried before juries which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded.”

On March 25th, 1932, nine African-American youths, whom their defense attorney maintained were ‘young, ignorant, and illiterate’, were accused of raping 2 Caucasian women while illegally on board a train carrying the victims. The initial trials lasted only 1 day and the 9 defendants were all sentenced to death; however, the defendants claimed that their public defense attorney did not perform adequate services with regard to their respective representation. Upon the appeal, the Supreme Court undertook supplemental judicial review of the case:

The Background of Powell v. Alabama

The defendants were later attributed with the moniker ‘The Scottsboro Boys’

The Case Profile of Powell v. Alabama

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

Date of the Trial: October 10th, 1932

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Accused Criminal Activity: 



The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Ozie Powell, Willie Roberson, Andy Wright, and Olen Montgomery against the State of Alabama within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The defendants maintained that their rights to Habeas Corpus were violated; habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law – they added that they were not granted the right to effective legal representation or acknowledgement of pertinent details regarding the legal hearing


The defendants were accused of rape in Powell v. Alabama, but were not awarded a fair trial.  

United States Reports Case Number: 287 U.S. 45

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: November 7th, 1932

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes

Involved Parties: 

Ozie Powell, Willie Roberson, Andy Wright, and Olen Montgomery; Plaintiff(s) – Powell v. Alabama

The State of Alabama; Defendant – Powell v. Alabama

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Powell, stating that the rights afforded to the defendants in the 14th Amendment were violated through insufficient legal representation and the general failure of the State to adhere to due process; although not the catalyst for the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that the 6th Amendment Rights entitled to the defendants were violated.

United States v. Lopez

United States v. LopezThe Background of United States v. Lopez:

United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the creation of the New Deal, which specifically created regulations or limits in regards to Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

Alfonso Lopez was a High School Senior at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992, Alfonso Lopez carried a concealed pistol, along with five cartridges, into the school. When confronted by authorities at the school, Lopez admitted to carrying the pistol; the next day, he was charged with violating the federal law which restricted firearms on all school properties. The specific law which Lopez was accused of violating is found in the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.

Alfonzo Lopez dismissed the indictment by stating that the creation of the Act was unconstitutional for the restrictions latent in the act went beyond the power of Congress; Lopez claimed that Congress was not allowed to legislate control over the public school district. The initial trial court denied this motion, ruling that Congress possessed the power to regulate activities that affected commerce and the safety of elementary, middle and high schools throughout the United States.

Alfonso Lopez was tried and subsequently convicted; he later appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals, claiming that the Act exceeded Congress’ ability to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit, after review, overturned the conviction, stating that the indictment was beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. The government then petitioned to the Supreme Court for the case to be reviewed.

Trial:

In United States v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s principal argument was that possession of a weapon in an education facility would likely lead to a violent crime, which would ultimately affect the general economic condition of the school and the community at large.

IN United States v. Lopez, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court Appeals. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Lopez, stated that while Congress had broad authority in regards to lawmaking under the Commerce Clause, the exact powers were limited, and did not extend so far from the clause as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of firearms.

The Case Profile of United States v. Lopez:

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

Date of the Trial: November 8, 1994

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 26, 1995

Legal Venue of United States v. Lopez: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Printz v. United States

Printz v. United StatesThe Background of Printz v. United States:

Printz v. United States was a landmark Supreme Court Case, which established the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions latent in the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Printz v. United States, revolved around the Gun Control Act of 1968, which established an exacting Federal scheme that ultimately governed the distribution of firearms in the United States. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited the ownership of firearms by certain broad categories of individuals who were thought to pose a threat to public safety. The individuals latent in the Gun Control Act of 1968 were such people as fugitives from justice, convicted felons, unlawful aliens and many others.

In 1993, the United States Congress amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 by enacting the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act. This piece of legislation required the Attorney General to establish a national background check system to prevent the sale of firearms to the aforementioned persons.

Printz v. United States Trial:

Jay Printz and Richard Mack (the CLEOs for Ravalli County, Montana and Graham County, Arizona respectively) filed separate actions that ultimately challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions.

In each case, the District Court system held that the provisions requiring the CLEOs to perform background checks was in fact unconstitutional, but also concluded, that the provision was severable from the remainder of the Act. This ruling, in the lower courts, placed a voluntary background check in place. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit then reversed this ruling, stating that none of the Brady Act’s provisions were unconstitutional.

The Printz v. United States, was then heard by the United States Supreme Court, who ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act’s interim provision–which commands that the chief law enforcement officer of each jurisdiction conduct background checks—was unconstitutional.

The Case Profile of Printz v. United States

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

Date of the Trial: December 3, 1996

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 27, 1997

Legal Venue of Printz v. United States: United States Supreme Court via the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Reynolds v. United States

Reynolds v. United StatesThe Background of Reynolds v. United States:

Reynolds v. United States was a fundamental United States Supreme Court case, which stated that religious duties were not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment.

George Reynolds was a prominent member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who was charged with bigamy under the provisions latent in the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. George Reynolds was charged after he married Amelia Jane Schofield while still holding a marriage with Mary Ann Tuddenham in the state of Utah.

The case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court, where George Reynolds argued that his previous conviction for bigamy should be overturned based on four fundamental reasons. The issues that George Reynolds offered in Reynolds v. United States included that his grand jury had not been established legally; that challenges made by certain jurors were improperly overruled; that the testimony offered by Amelia Jane Schofield was not made permissible as it was under the previous indictment; and, and most fundamentally, that it was his religious obligation to marry multiple times.

The Case Profile of Reynolds v. United States:

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

Date of the Trial: Reynolds v. United States was argued in the United States Supreme Court on November 14th 1878.

Legal Classification: The Mormons believed that the law which prevented them from marrying multiple times was unconstitutional because it deprived them of their First Amendment right to freely practice religion.

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the state of Utah under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act against George Reynolds within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

George Reynolds, in Reynolds v. United States, was being indicted for marrying multiple women without divorcing (participating in polygamy). 

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: The case of Reynolds v. United States concluded on May 5 1879.

Legal Venue of Reynolds v. United States: The United States Supreme Court by way of the District Court for the 3rd Judicial District of the Territory of Utah—the conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Utah as well.

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Morrison Waite

Verdict Delivered: In Reynolds v. Utah, the court stated that religious duty was not a suitable defense against any felony acts or any criminal indictments attached to the defending party.

Robert Hanssen: Former FBI Agent and Spy

Robert Hanssen: Former FBI Agent and SpyWho is Robert Hanssen?

Robert Hanssen is a former FBI agent who engaged in espionage for the Soviet and Russian intelligent services from 1979 to 2001. As a result of his engagement in espionage and conspiracy charges, Robert Hanssen is currently serving a life sentence at the Federal Bureau of Prisons Administrative Maximum Facility prison in Florence, Colorado. This particular facility is regarded as a “Super Maximum” penitentiary and is home to individuals who have committed the egregious and serious felony offenses in or against the United States of America. Robert Hanssen, for his longtime involvement in spying against the United States, currently spends 23 hours a day in solitary confinement.

Robert Hanssen was arrested on February 18 of 2001 in Vienna, Virginia and was subsequently charged with selling American secrets and confidential information to Russia for more than $1.4 million in cash and diamonds over a 22 year period. On July 6, 2001 Robert Hanssen pleaded guilty to 13 counts of espionage in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Robert Hanssen, upon his admission, was then sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. For his role as a conspirator, Robert Hanssen’s activities are typically described as the worst intelligence disaster in the history of the United States.

Robert Hanssen’s Early FBI Career:

Robert Hanssen joined the FBI as a special agent on January 12th, 1974 where he was transferred to the field office in Gary, Indiana. In the following years, Robert Hansen was transferred to counter-intelligence and was responsible for compiling a database of Soviet Intelligence that was to be given to the FBI. During this function, Robert Hanssen began his career as a Soviet/Russian spy.

In 1979, Robert Hanssen contacted the Soviet military intelligence agency and offered his services as an undercover spy. Robert Hanssen later informed the FBI that there was no ideological or political motive to operating as a Russian spy, he offered his services purely as a means of earning a handsome payment.

During his first cycle as a Soviet spy, Hanssen told the Soviet military intelligence agency a significant amount of information, including information regarding FBI bugging activities and lists of suspected Soviet intelligence agents. In addition, Robert Hanssen revealed the identities of CIA informants who passed information to the American intelligence agencies. The most noteworthy delivery of information concerning Soviet traitors was delivered by Hanssen when he revealed the true identity of Dmitri Polyakov—a Soviet General who passed on critical information to the CIA.

Robert Hanssen’s Espionage Activities:

Robert Hanssen, still unnoticed by the FBI, was eventually transferred to the FBI’s budget office. This new role gave Hanssen access to all kinds of financial information involving an assortment of FBI activities, including all activities related to wiretapping and electronic surveillance. Hansen continued to work with the Soviet government and the KGB to extract undercover agents, notify traitors and deliver information concerning confidential FBI activities.

Robert Hanssen Exposed:

Although Robert Hanssen never revealed his identity and refused to meet with the Russian Military Agency and KGB, two moles that were employed within the FBI to sniff out the funneling of information, eventually pinpointed Robert Hanssen as the spy. Robert Hanssen was able to continue working as a spy because he was described as “diabolically brilliant” by his superiors within the FBI. Hanssen always refused to use the dead drop sites with his handler and often designated a code to be used when dates or information was exchanged. Although his efforts were delivered with extreme caution, Hanssen was eventually caught by the moles.

Hanssen, when arrested and subsequently charged, negotiated a please bargain that enabled him to escape a death sentence—the plea required that Hanssen cooperate with authorities and reveal all information that was leaked.

The Tragedy at Ruby Ridge

The Tragedy at Ruby RidgeWhat is Ruby Ridge?

Ruby Ridge is in northern Idaho and is the site of a series of violent confrontations that took place in 1992. The confrontations required a siege against Randy Weaver, his family and Kevin Harris (a friend of Randy Weaver). The siege that took place on Ruby Ridge was deployed by agents of the United States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

What Sparked the Siege at Ruby Ridge?

Randy Weaver was a former factory worker in Iowa and United States Army Green beret. During the 1980s he moved his family to northern Idaho in order to home school his children and escape to a world that was not marred by corruption. Randy Weaver’s wife, Vicki, was the religious leader of the family and firmly believed that the apocalypse was looming.

The Weavers bought 20 acres of land on Ruby Ridge in 1983. In 1984, Randy Weaver and his neighbor, Terry Kinnison, fought over a $3,000 property transaction. Enraged over the dispute, Kinnison wrote letters to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service and the local Sheriff, claiming that Weaver had threatened to kill the President of the United States, the governor of Idaho and the Pope.

Upon investigation, the Federal Burea of Investigations discovered that Weaver had an alliance with members of the Aryan nation. Realizing this threat, the ATF conducted numerous investigations, some of which were undercover, against Weaver to reveal any criminal activities that were present in Ruby Ridge. In October of 1989, the ATF claimed that Weaver sold informants two sawed-off shotguns that did not meet the length requirements set by federal law. A federal grand jury later indicted Weaver, in December of 1990, for making and possessing, but not selling, the illegal weapons.

Weaver refused to accept the charges based on his sentiment that the ATF was “setting him up.” As a result of this belief, Weaver failed to show up for his court date. This absence made Weaver a fugitive and transferred the case to the Marshal Service. Following an elaborate 18-month surveillance of the Weaver’s cabin at Ruby Ridge, the Marshalls decided to conduct a siege on the land.

The Ruby Ridge Siege:

Weaver, who didn’t trust the federal government, refused to leave his cabin at Ruby Ridge. Assuming that Weaver was armed in the cabin, six marshals were sent to Ruby Ridge to determine suitable areas away from the cabin where they could effectively ambush and arrest Weaver.

The Marshals, who were equipped with M16 rifles and night-vision goggles, eventually engaged the Weavers in a firefight. The siege, which lasted two days, prompted the release of a 542 page investigation. While federal officials claimed that the confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed the federal marshals, the report gives a different story.

Although the details are somewhat muddled, the fight started when the agents shot one of Weaver’s barking dogs. In response, Weaver’s son Sammy and his friend, Kevin Harris, went outside and fired at the agents. While running back to the cabin, Sammy was shot in the back and killed. Kevin Harris, who witnessed the killings, fired back at the agents and killed one of them.

Following the initial shootout, the Weavers and Harris retreated to the cabin where a small army surrounded the area. On August 22, 1992 Randy Weaver was shot and wounded and his wife, Vicki, was killed as she stood in the doorway of the cabin. Eleven days after the initial shootout, Randy Weaver finally surrendered.

Aftermath:

After he surrendered, the confrontation at Ruby Ridge was heard in a federal criminal trial. Weaver’s attorney, made accusations that every agency involved in the shootout violated the Weaver’s rights as American citizens. Randy Weaver was ultimately acquitted of all charges except missing his original court date and violating bail conditions—for these wrongdoings, Weaver was sentenced to 18 months and fined $10,000. Randy Harris was acquitted of all charges as the courts ruled that his actions were made in self-defense. Weaver and his family were awarded $3.5 million dollars in a wrongful death suit that was filed for the killing of Weaver’s 14-year old son.