Who were Sacco and Vanzetti?

Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were infamous anarchists who were ultimately convicted of murdering two men during an armed robbery that took place in South Braintree, Massachusetts during 1920. Not only are Sacco and Vanzetti infamous for their murder and armed robbery attempt, but also for the controversial trial and series of appeals, the two Italian immigrants had undertaken.

Although their legal battles tested the American judicial system, Sacco and Vanzetti were found guilty of their crimes and were executed on August 23rd of 1927. Following their execution new evidence and a re-review of the trial proved that Sacco and Vanzetti were falsely accused.

Background Information:

Sacco and Vanzetti moved to the United States at the age of seventeen. Both Sacco and Venzetti were devout followers of Luigi Galleani—a famous Italian anarchist who commonly advocated for the delivery of revolutionary violence, including assassinating public figures and bombing government buildings. During this era, the United States Federal Government viewed Italian anarchists as the most dangerous enemies of the state.

As a result of their dangerous status, the majority of Galleani’s followers were isolated and subsequently deported by the United States government. Followers of Galleani, such as Sacco and Vanzetti, routinely produced publications that evoked hateful messages towards government and called for a violent uprising to end oppressive or authoritative regulations.

The Charge:

On April 15th of 1920, two employees of the Slater-Morril Shoe Company were transferring $17,000 to a bank in South Braintree, Massachusetts. The two men were halted and murdered by two armed robbers who stole the cash and escaped in a getaway car which was believed to have been stolen. The two victims of the attack–who later died from gunshot wounds— as well as witnesses on the scene, indicated to officials that assailants were of Italian decent. Sacco and Venzetti, unfortunately, fell into a police trap which ultimately implicated them of committing the crimes.

The Trial:

Sacco and Venzetti were tried for the murder in 1921—Venzetti was only charged for the robbery portion of the crime. Through the trial, many government officials and prominent Americans stated that the trial was not delivered in a way that met the Constitutional privileges guaranteed by the United States government. After a series of failed appeals, Sacco and Venzetti were executed via the electric chair in 1927. As a result of the sketchiness and inequality that enshrouded the trial, great public outcry accompanied the execution of Sacco and Venzetti.

Many historians agree that the justice system ultimately failed Sacco and Venzetti as a result of their allegiance to anarchist groups. 

The Background of Shelley v. Kraemer:

Shelley v. Kraemer was a landmark Supreme Court case which stated that courts could not enforce racial covenants on real estate properties.

In 1945, an African-American family (the Shelley family) purchased a home in St. Louis, Missouri. During the time of purchase, the Shelley family was unaware that a restrictive covenant had been placed on the property since 1911. This covenant barred African Americans and Mongolians from owning the property. Louis Kraemer, an individual who lived ten blocks from the purchased piece of real estate, sued the Shelley family for purchasing the property.

The Supreme Court of Missouri stated that the covenant was enforceable against the Shelly family because the covenant was a private agreement between the original owners and was enforceable on any party who purchased the land in the future.

Shelley v. Kraemer Trial:

When the Shelley v. Kraemer trial was appealed, the court considered two primary questions: are racially-based restrictive covenants legal in regards to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and can they be enforced by the court of law?

The United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer ruled that racially-based restrictive covenants are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stated that private parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of the covenant, but they may not seek enforcement of such a covenant, because the courts would constitute state action. Since a state action would by nature be discriminatory, the enforcement of a racially-based covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Case Profile of Shelley v. Kraemer:

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

Date of the Trial: Shelley v. Kraemer was argued on January 15, 1948

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: 334 U.S.

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Shelley v. Kraemer was decided on May 3, 1948

Legal Venue of Shelley v. Kraemer: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Fred Vinson

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

Plaintiff: Shelley Family, Defendant: The state of Missouri and property owner Louis Kraemer

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer ruled in favor of the plaintiff b stating that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing restricting covenants on the basis of race or color. 

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

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Background of South Dakota v. Dole:

South Dakota v. Dole was a landmark Supreme Court case that revolved around federalism and the power of the United States Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

The United States Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was designed to discourage individual states from lowering the drinking age in 1984. The Act effectively achieved their goals by withholding 5% of state taxes; in 1988 this amount was increased to 10%. South Dakota challenged this law; the state had allowed 19-year olds to purchase beer that contained up to 3.2% alcohol.

South Dakota v. Dole Trial:

The Supreme Court of the United States decided that Congress, when applying its taxing and spending clauses, was not violating the 21st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress would only be in violation if the condition applied was ambiguous, did not promote the “general welfare”, and did not relate to the “federal interest in particular national projects or programs.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars federal regulation of the individual states and it has often been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit the Federal Government from applying regulations to the drinking age. That being said, the Supreme Court of the United States did not find Congress to run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendment when enacting the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. 

The Case Profile of South Dakota v. Dole:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘South Dakota v. Dole’:

Date of the Trial: South Dakota v. Dole was argued on April 28, 1987.

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

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: South Dakota v. Dole was decided on June 23, 1987

Legal Venue of South Dakota v. Dole: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole found that Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds and revenue that is disbursed to the individual states. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact South Dakota lawyers.

The Background of the slaughter-house cases

The Slaughter-House Cases was a landmark Supreme Court decision, which acted as the first interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Slaughter-House cases is viewed as a fundamental court decision in regards to early civil right law; the Supreme Court of the United States read the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the “privileges or immunities” to all individuals of all states within the United States, but not those immunities or privileges incident to the citizenship of a state.

The Slaughter-house cases consolidated three Supreme Court cases that all dealt with the 14th Amendment: The Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company; The Live-Stock Dealers’ and Butchers’ Association of New Orleans, and Charles Cavaroc v. The State of Louisiana; The Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company

In the mid-19th century, the city of New Orleans was plagued by pollution as a result of animal byproducts that came from local slaughterhouses; the byproducts flooded the city whenever the tide from the Mississippi river was low. Numerous slaughterhouses would gut roughly 300,000 animals per year and the entrails would be dumped into the river, which ultimately affected the purity of the city’s drinking water.

In response to the polluting of the river, a New Orleans grand jury recommended that the slaughterhouses be moved to the southern portion of the city; however, since the majority of the slaughterhouses were outside city limits, the grand jury’s recommendations held little weight. The city later appealed to the state legislature and as a result, the Louisiana legislature passed a law that allowed the city to create a centralized corporation that consolidated all slaughterhouses in New Orleans. 

In response to this legislation, over four hundred members of the Butchers’ Benevolent Association joined together to sue the corporation’s takeover of the slaughterhouse industry.

Slaughter-house cases Trial:

The lower courts in New Orleans favored the states and found the creation of the corporation to be within the state’s powers. Following this decision, six cases were appealed to the Supreme Court: the butchers based these claims on the privileges or immunities, due process and equal protection clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel Miller, stated that the court held a narrow interpretation of the amendment and ruled that it ultimately did not restrict the police powers of the state.

The Case Profile of the slaughter-house cases

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘the slaughter-house cases’:

Date of the Trial: The Slaughter-house cases were argued on January 11, 1872 and re-argued on February 3-5 of 1873

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: 83 U.S. 36

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: The Slaughter-house cases were decided on April 14, 1873

Legal Venue of the slaughter-house cases: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Salmon Chase

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court of the United States found that the privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment while privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state are not protected.

Who 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.

Who 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.

Who 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.

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.”

The 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

The 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