Famous Trials

The Case Profile of Marbury v. Madison

The Case Profile of Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison Brief Explained

The Marbury v. Madison Brief is a legal brief that depicts the events and circumstances surrounding the eponymous court case considered to be amongst the first of many landmark Supreme Court Cases. The Marbury v. Madison Brief involved a dispute that took place with regard to the appointment process of the Justice of Peace position taking place during the transition of presidential terms undertaken within the Executive Branch of the United States of America; the Marbury v. Madison Brief cited judicial review with regard to the appointments of office mandated by John Adams at the time of the termination of his presidency; these events existed in tandem with President Elect Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to recognize the former president’s mandates.

The Marbury v. Madison Brief

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Marbury v. Madison Brief’:

Date of the Trial: The Marbury v. Madison Brief began on February 11th, 1803

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: 5 U.S. 137

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: A verdict with regard to the Marbury v. Madison Brief was delivered on February 24th, 1803

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Marbury v. Madison Brief case:

Plaintiff William Marshall was the appointee to the position of Justice of the Peace; subsequent to his appointment and the termination of Adam’s presidency, President Elect Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison refused to finalize Marshall’s commission process – this resulted in the Marshall’s inability to assume his previously appointed position

Defendant James Madison was appointed as the Secretary of State in conjunction to the cabinet of President Elect Thomas Jefferson; in order to stifle Adams’ attempt to fill the cabinet with Federalists, James Madison was instructed to reject the commission of William Marshall as Justice of the Peace – commissions could only be approved while the appointing President remained in office

Verdict Delivered: The verdict delivered by John Marshall – the first Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States – ruled in favor of James Madison, citing that although William Marshall was entitled to his appointed position, the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government was unable to force the actions of other branches of the Federal Government

Associated Legislation with regard to Marbury v. Madison Brief: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Marbury v. Madison Brief:

Article III of the United States Constitution prevented the Judicial Branch from forcing the action of another branch of the Federal Government; as a result, Jefferson was not only constitutionally permitted to deny William Marshall’s appointment, but in accordance to this ruling, William Marshall was never appointed as a Justice of the Peace

Who is John Wayne Gacy?

Who is John Wayne Gacy?Who is John Wayne Gacy?

John Wayne Gacy was a convicted serial murderer who resided in the Chicago Suburb of Des Plaines, Illinois. He was convicted of both the rape and murder of his victims, who ranged in age; however, all of John Wayne Gacy’s victims were reported as males. The murderous rampage of John Wayne Gacy lasted for approximately 6 years within which resulted in the murder of 33 victims.

John Wayne Gacy Profile

The following outlines the crimes of John Wayne Gacy

Date of Birth: John Wayne Gacy was born on March 17th, 1942; he dies on May 10th, 1994 from lethal injection resulting from his sentencing

Residence: During the time of his murders, John Wayne Gacy resided in Des Plaines, Illinois

Year of First Killing: In 1972, John Wayne Gacy was reported to have committed his first murder, which involved a 15 year old boy named Timothy McCoy; John Wayne Gacy and his wife met McCoy at a bus terminal in Chicago

Year of Apprehension: On December 21st, 1978, law enforcement agents entered the home of John Wayne Gacy in order to investigate the possible possession of Marijuana; they discovered 26 corpses belonging to his victims that were stuffed within the heating ducts of his home

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

John Wayne Gacy was married throughout the bulk of his murders; in certain cases, he had coerced his wife into remaining silent with regard to his crimes, in addition to her acting as a forced accomplice to these crimes

John Wayne Gacy had developed a persona, which he had named ‘Pogo the Clown’; while engaged in this persona, John Wayne Gacy would oftentimes entertain individuals at fundraising and charity functions

John Wayne Gacy hid 26 of his 33 victims within the ductwork within his home; only 7 of his victims were disposed of in other locations

John Wayne Gacy was charged with a variety of sex crimes prior to his murder conviction; the most famous was a case involving Robert Donnelly, who claimed that John Wayne Gacy had kidnapped him and forced him to participate in sexual slavery

As a child, John Wayne Gacy was recorded as having an antisocial personality disorder possibly resulting from abuse sustained by his father

Locations of the Murders: Des Plaines, Illinois; many of his victims were met within the City of Chicago

Victims:  John Wayne Gacy was charged for the murder of 33 individuals

Status as a Serial Killer: John Wayne Gacy is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that John Wayne Gacy was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month

Nature of Victims: John Wayne Gacy’s victims were classified as teenage boys

Punishment and Conviction: On March 13th, 1978, John Wayne Gacy was convicted of 33 murders; subsequent to the passing of the a statute allowing capital punishment within the State of Illinois in 1977, he was sentenced to incarceration and death as the Stateville Correctional Facility in Crest Hill, Illinois

What are the Atlanta Child Murders?

What are the Atlanta Child Murders?

 

What are the Atlanta Child Murders?

The Atlanta Child Murders were a series of murders that took place in Atlanta, Georgia between the spring of 1979 and the summer of 1981 upon the apprehension of suspected murderer Wayne Williams; the Atlanta Child Murders are estimated to have included the murder of 28 victims – 24 of the victims were of African-American descent, while 4 of the victims were reported as being of Caucasian descent. The victims ranged from children to adults. In addition to the estimation of the number of victims being 28, many individuals maintain that the actual victim count exceeded that number. Contact Atlanta lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

Profile of the Atlanta Child Murders

The following outlines the crimes involving the Atlanta Child Murders

Suspect of the Atlanta Child Murders: The suspect apprehended for the Atlanta Child Murders was Wayne Williams, who was 23 at the time of his apprehension; he was referred to as the ‘Atlanta Child Murderer’

Date of Birth: Wayne Williams was born on May 27th, 1958 in Atlanta, Georgia

Residence: At the time of his arrest for the Atlanta Child Murders, Williams lived in the Dixie Hills region of Atlanta, Georgia

Year of First Killing: Edward Smith, a 14 year old of African-American descent, was reported missing on July 21st, 1979; this is considered to be amongst the first of the 28 Atlanta Child Murders – however, Smith’s body was never recovered

Year of Apprehension: June 21st, 1981

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken in conjunction with regard to the Atlanta Child Murders; in addition, these case details were made mention within the criminal trial of the Atlanta Child Murders:

Wayne Williams was apprehended after a Statewide investigation, which employed the bulk of Atlanta law enforcement agents; criminal forensic experts estimated that the killer would begin to dispose of his victims in surrounding bodies of water in order to conceal the evidence of the crimes

Law enforcement agents heard a ‘Splash’ sound while watching the banks of the Chattahoochee River underneath the Cobb Drive Bridge; after identifying the nature of the splash coming from Wayne Williams, they apprehended him under the suspicion of murder

The body of Nathan Carter was found several days later in that area of the Chattahoochee River; Carter was 27 years old and the final victim in the Atlanta Child Murders

Locations of the Murders: Atlanta, Georgia

Victims: There were 28 total victims of the Atlanta Child Murders

Status as a Serial Killer: Wayne Williams is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that the Atlanta Child Murders involved the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month in conjunction with a ‘rest’ period – the Atlanta Child Murders resumed after William’s resting period between October 21st, 1979 and March 4th, 1980

Nature of Victims: African-American individuals ranging gender, age, and race

Punishment and Conviction: Wayne Williams was found guilty of only 2 of the Atlanta Child Murders; however, his involvement with the entirety of them was assumed – he was sentenced to 2 terms of life imprisonment in a State Penitentiary in Georgia

Gonzales v. Raich

Gonzales v. RaichThe Background of Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

In 2002, the Federal Government – through the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) – entered the property of Angel Raich and repossessed the medicinal Marijuana of which she was legally in possession with regard to the statutes enacted by the State government of California; she had claimed that the Federal government acted in lieu of statutes implemented by the State of California. Raich, as well as the physician responsible for her care, insisted that her not only her recovery, but her wellbeing was contingent on her usage of Marijuana as medical treatment; she has suffered injuries resulting from a car accident that she had reported to cause her excruciating pain, which was quelled by Marijuana:

Proposition 215 passed by the State of California states that unless granted the expressed permission by applicable California governmental departments, the act of growing, possessing, using, selling, transporting, or buying Marijuana is a punishable and illegal act

With regard to medicinal marijuana, the prescription to specific patients residing in the State of California upon being granted expressed permission from an approved and accredited health professional is considered to be legal; yet, any activity that takes place involving medicinal marijuana existing outside of its intended usage is a punishable offense

The Case Profile of Gonzales v. Raich

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

Date of the Trial: November 24th, 2004

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Alberto Gonzales, who was the Attorney General of the State of California against Angel Raich within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Angel Raich cited that the Federal Government of the United States had violated the statute of ‘Medical Necessity’, which permits the administration of legitimate medical treatments and cures to those in need; she stated that her denial to use medicinal marijuana was a violation of her 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights

United States Reports Case Number: 545 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 6th, 2004

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

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

Alberto Gonzales; Plaintiff – Gonzales v. Raich

Angel McClary Raich; Defendant – Gonzales v. Raich

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gonzales, who was acting as the District Attorney of the State of California, stating that because the Federal Government did not recognize the usage of Marijuana for medicinal purposes within the tenets of the Controlled Substances Act, the Federal Government was permitted to place discretionary bans and repossession of Marijuana deemed legal by the State of California – these bans and prohibition are permitted to exist regardless of their respective prescriptions and State mandate

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

The 5th Amendment prevents the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body

The 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights; this Amendment disallows for the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power

The 10th Amendment addresses the apportionment process latent within administrative responsibilities; this Amendment expressed that any or all administrative powers that have not been claimed by Federal or State governments become the responsibility of the general populace

The Tragic Events of September 11th

The Tragic Events of September 11thActs of Terrorism Explained:

An act of terrorism refers to the systematic and diabolical use of terror as a means of coercion. Although there is no universally criminal law definition of terrorism, common characteristics of the act refer to the delivery of violent acts which are intended to precipitate fear on a given society or nation. Acts of terror are typically perpetrated for a political, ideological or religious goal; terrorists deliberately target and subsequently disregard the safety of civilians to forcefully instill an ideological goal.

When a terrorist organization attempts to achieve such a goal through terrorism, they are using fear and terror as their primary mechanisms; violent acts, when delivered to a society at random, invariably make a community or nation acknowledge the underlying motive. All terrorists and their underlying terrorist organizations will not align themselves with government organizations or formal government bodies.

Definitions of terrorism will always include acts of unlawful violence and war. That being said, any action that precipitates violence on a society and disrupts the harmony and general function of a sociological setting will be considered an act of terrorism.

The September 11th Attacks:

The September 11th attacks were a series of systematic suicide attacks coordinated by Al-Qaeda—a national terrorist organization comprised of Muslim extremists and led by Osama Bin Laden.

On the morning of September 11th, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and intentionally crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and the fourth plane crashed into an open field near Shanksville Pennsylvania.

The attacks of September 11th killed every single passenger on board of the airliners; in total, nearly 3,000 victims died in the attacks of September 11th. Additionally, according to the New York State Health Department, 836 responders (firefighters and police personnel) perished from the aftereffects of the attack and the recovery attempts.

The attacks of September 11th on the World Trade Center killed 2,752 victims (343 firefighters and 60 police officers) and the attacks on the Pentagon caused 184 deaths; the majority of victims who died in the Pentagon were civilians and nationals from 70 different countries.

Attackers:

Within hours of the September 11th attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to determine the names and personal details of the suspected pilots and hijackers. Mohamed Atta, was pinpointed as the ringleader of the 19 hijackers and one of the pilots of the four hijacked aircrafts. Similar to the other hijackers, Atta died in the attack; however, his luggage, which never made the connection from his flight, contained detailed documents and papers that revealed the identities of all 19 hijackers.

By midday of September 11th, the National Security Agency intercepted a string of communications that labeled Osama bin Laden as the unwavering mastermind behind the attacks of September 11th. The FBI investigation of the September 11th attacks was the largest and most comprehensive investigation in the history of the agency. The United States government, following this investigation, determined that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks of September 11th.

The response to the September 11th Attacks:

The United States federal government responded to the September 11th attacks by launching the War on Terror. This counter-attack included the enacting of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan to eventually dispose the Taliban—the agency who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists.

Atkins v. Virginia

Atkins v. Virginia

 

The Background of Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Daryl Renard Atkins and another individual were convicted of robbing and murdering an individual after abducting him; shortly after the robbery, the two men killed the victim. Upon the investigation, the recounts given by the two suspects were in contrast of each other, however, due to the determination of Atkins as an individual with ‘mild retardation’, the presiding jury accepted the testimony of the other individual accomplice – Atkins was sentenced to death:

Within the Supreme Court case Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), Penry was convicted of a crime in the State of Texas and sentenced to be executed; although Penry was determined to be mentally incompetent and mentally retarded, the Supreme court ruled that Penry’s sentencing was not in violation of his 8th Amendment rights

However, with regard to sentencing the Supreme court required that the jury be privy to the analysis of specialized factors with regard to the sentencing of an individual deemed to be mentally retarded; these factors include an profile of the nature of the mental illness or deficiency, the relation of the mental illness to the crime committed, and the functionality and capability of the suspect in question

The Case Profile of Atkins v. Virginia

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

Date of the Trial: February 20th, 2002

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Daryl Renard Atkins against the State of Virginia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Atkins appealed his sentencing, his attorney stating that the execution of an individual determined to be mentally retarded was a violation of the 8th Amendment forbidding ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment

United States Reports Case Number: 536 U.S. 304

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 20th, 2002

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice

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

Daryl Renard Atkins; Plaintiff – Atkins v. Virginia

The State of Virginia; Defendant – Atkins v. Virginia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that the execution of any individual considered to be mentally retarded or developmentally incompetent through capital punishment was a violation of the 8th Amendment; not only did the Supreme Court overturn the execution of Atkins, but also overturned that of Penry – in lieu of their respective executions, the two men were sentenced with life imprisonment.

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

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process. Contact Virginia lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

 

Tinker v. Des Moines

Tinker v. Des MoinesThe Background of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines, which is an abridged title for the full name of the court case ‘Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District’, was an appellate hearing undertaken by the Supreme Court in which the judicial review of a case involving 3 minors – John F. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhart – were suspended from their respective schools for brandishing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Both the Circuit Court, as well as the Court of Appeals in the State of Iowa ruled that black armbands, which represented the protest of war, were inappropriate within school grounds. Due to the fact the 3 students were below the legal age to be heard in a court of law, the students fathers, Leonard Tinker and Christopher Eckhart – respectively, brought their childrens’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Case Profile of Tinker v. Des Moines

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Tinker v. Des Moines’:

Date of the Trial: November 12th, 1968

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker – both classified as legal minors – and Leonard Tinker against the State of Iowa within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The Tinkers stated that their arrest resulting from their respective expressions, which were admittedly a sign of protest – in lieu of a sign of violence, was a direct violation of both their 1st and 14th Amendment Rights, which preserved and protected the rights to free speech and free expression win accordance to applicable legislation and legality

United States Reports Case Number: 393 U.S. 503

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: February 24th, 1969

Legal Venue of Tinker v. Des Moines: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Tinker v. Des Moines case:

John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker (minors), Leonard Tinker (adult); Plaintiff(s) – Tinker v. Des Moines

The State of Iowa; Defendant – Tinker v. Des Moines

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers, stating that within the nature of protest undertaken by John Tinker, there existed no implicit – or inherent – intent to orchestrate violence, harm, disruption, damage, or criminal activity. However, the Tinker Standard – or Tinker Test – is a legal instrument required as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, which allows individual school administration to prohibit the expression undertaken by its students that may presumed to be incendiary, disruptive to the enactment of education, or in retention of the potential to incite a unrest

Associated Legislation with regard to Tinker v. Des Moines: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Tinker v. Des Moines trial:

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

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

Schenck v. United States

Schenck v. United StatesThe Background of Schenck v. United States (1919)

Charles Schenck was arrested in 1919 subsequent to his organization of a protest against the draft undertaken by the Federal government of the United States in the wake of World War I; a self-proclaimed member of the Socialist Party, Schenck disbursed almost 20,000 leaflets urging the recipients to refuse to participate in the draft – he explained that the notion of the draft could be considered to be a nature of slavery or servitude. In the midst of his protest, he was arrested on the grounds of what was explained as a direct violation of the Espionage Act enacted in 1917:

The Espionage Act of 1917 required that the nature of any expression must comply with the government’s responsibility to both preserve and protect the wellbeing of the citizens of the United States of America; any event or individual expression thought to deter or compromise military actions undertaken by the Federal government was deemed to be a criminal activity

The Case Profile of Schenck v. United States

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

Date of the Trial: January 9th – 10th, 1919

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

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Charles T. Schenck against the United States of America within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Schenck cited the tenets of the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery and forced servitude; he maintained that a draft – through forced enlistment – could be classified as a measure of forced servuitude

Schenck also cited that the notion of public censorship was in direct violation of his civil liberties allowing him the right to free speech and free expression

United States Reports Case Number: 249 U.S. 47

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 3rd, 1919

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Edward D. White

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

Charles T. Schenck; Plaintiff – Schenck v. United States

The United States of America; Defendant – Schenck v. United States

Verdict Delivered: Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between incendiary expression and incendiary acts – Schenck’s sentiments expressed were indeed considered to be latent with the prospect of immediate danger, threat, and harm with regard to the safety and wellbeing of the general populace

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

The provisions set forth within the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution mandate the freedom of speech expression, which prohibits the unlawful banning, prohibition, and ceasing of unlawful censorship; freedom of expression is an unalienable right afforded to every citizen of the United States of America – however, the stipulations within the 1st Amendment require that the nature of the expression in question exist in accordance with applicable legislature

The 13th Amendment illustrates the distinction(s) between servitude, slavery, and consensual labor; forced labor is any type of labor that takes place through the implementation of threat(s), physically restraint of an individual with regard to the proliferation of labor, exploitative or blackmail –based activity in order to continue labor, and the implementation of fear in order to solidify servitude

Strickland v. Washington

Strickland v. Washington

 

The Background of Strickland v. Washington (1984)

In 1984, the Defendant David Washington entered a guilty plea to a murder for which he was being tried; subsequent to the hearing, Washington explained that he was advised to do so at the behest of his attorney. Within the proceedings of the hearing, Washington’s attorney neither requested character witnesses nor a mandatory psychiatric evaluation with regard to the defense offered to Washington; when asked, Washington’s attorney upheld that suspicion of mental illness or an alibi was not applicable to the defense. Upon the sentencing given by the Florida State Court, Washington was found guilty and sentenced to death as a result of his murder conviction; Washington appealed the sentence, claiming that he had received insufficient legal representation from his State-appointed legal counsel, citing a violation of his rights to due process:

The notion of due process ensures that an individual not only has the right to a fair and just hearing, but also the provision of competent and accredited legal counsel with regard to the construction of legal defense

The Case Profile of Strickland v. Washington

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

Date of the Trial: January 10th, 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

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the party referred to as ‘Strickland’ – acting as the Superintendent of Florida’s Department of Prisons against ‘Washington’ – a convicted criminal within the Florida penal system – within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Washington claimed that he had undergone a violation of the right to a fair and just hearing as was expressed within the 6th Amendment to the Constitution; furthermore, he argued that the legal counsel appointed to him did not provide acceptable services, which resulted in an unjust sentencing

United States Reports Case Number: 466 U.S. 668

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: May 14th, 1984

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

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

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

Strickland; Plaintiff – Strickland v. Washington

Washington (1st name withheld); Defendant – Strickland v. Washington

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled against Washington, claiming that although individual citizens are indeed entitled to competent legal counsel, the report of any or all suspected or presumed inefficiencies existing within the provision of legal counsel must be enacted through the setting forth of evidence illustrating the nature of legal inefficiency – expressly stated with regard to not only the circumstances existing in contrast of legal competence – but also their respective contribution to the ultimate verdict.

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

The 6th Amendment addresses legal procedure undertaken with regard to the prosecution – and investigation – of alleged criminal activity; this Amendment includes the right to a judicially-sound trial; with regard to the Strickland v. Washington, the 6th Amendment requires an individual’s right to legal representation, regardless of financial stature. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact Washington lawyers.

Barron v. Baltimore

Barron v. BaltimoreThe Background of Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

John Barron, a resident of Baltimore, Maryland, sued the City of Baltimore as a result of damages sustained to his commercial operation residing in the Baltimore harbor. The city of Baltimore had enacted the adjustment of water flow on the edge of the Baltimore Harbor, which resulted in insufficient water flow existing within Barron’s property; subsequent to the city’s actions, Barron discovered that boats and ships were unable to dock in his area of the harbor – this resulted in damage to his revenue. Barron sued the City of Baltimore and was awarded monetary restitution for the damages sustained; however, the case was appealed and thereafter heard before the Supreme Court:

Eminent Domain is defined as the ability of a government to repossess lands belonging to its citizens or residents in the event that the property is necessary for ‘public use’; while the classification of public use had yet to be defined in 1833, subsequent court cases involving the process of eminent domain have decided these cases with regard to the qualification of presumed public use as a means to repossess private property

The Case Profile of Barron v. Baltimore

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

Date of the Trial: February 11th, 1833

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by John Barron – on behalf of the executor of the estate of John Craig – against the City of Baltimore, Maryland within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Barron claimed that the usage of eminent domain was a direct violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution, which mandates the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue damage and harm

United States Reports Case Number: 32 U.S. 243

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: February 16th, 1833

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marhsall

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

John Barron; Plaintiff – Barron v. Baltimore

The City of Baltimore, Maryland; Defendant – Barron v. Baltimore

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Baltimore, stating that the precepts stated within the 5th Amendment to the Constitution were limited to adherence by the Federal government; due to the fact that the 5th Amendment does not express the requirement of individual State and City governments to adhere to these tenets. As a result of their ruling, the Supreme Court established that individual legislation were not susceptible to the regulation of the 5th Amendment

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

The 5th Amendment prevents the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body through the implementation of the legal instrument of ‘Due Process’