Famous Trials

The Case Profile of Bonnie and Clyde

The Case Profile of Bonnie and ClydeWho were Bonnie and Clyde?

Bonnie and Clyde – commonly known by the moniker given to Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow – were a romantically-involved couple who undertook a crime spree lasting upwards of 2 years. Bonnie and Clyde began their criminal activity shortly after their first meeting in 1930; shortly after this meeting, Clyde was imprisoned and released in 1932 – after his release, Bonnie and Clyde embarked on a crime spree taking place between 1932 and 1934. On May 23rd, 1934 – in the State of Louisiana – Bonnie and Clyde were ambushed and killed by law enforcement agents:

Within their 2-year string of criminal activities, Bonnie and Clyde were considered to be responsible for a wide range of criminal activity; furthermore, the couple managed to evade police capture several times – however, this oftentimes resulted in the murder of both law enforcement agents and civilians

Subsequent to their criminal activity began in 1932, Bonnie and Clyde were never arrested

The Case Profile of Bonnie and Clyde

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of Bonnie and Clyde, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with their respective case:

Date of Birth: Bonnie Parker was born on October 1st, 1910; Clyde Barrow was born on March 24th, 1909 – both Bonnie and Clyde died at the ages of 25 on May 23rd, 1934

Residence: Bonnie and Clyde undertook residencies across the span of the United States in order to avoid capture

Date of the Crimes: 1932 to May 23rd, 1934

Criminal Charges: Bonnie and Clyde were accused of the following crimes:

1st Degree Murder; murder committed in an unlawful, illegal, premature, and purposeful fashion

Kidnapping and Abduction; the illegal act of the abduction of an unwilling or unknowing individual at the hands of another individual or entity

Armed Robbery; the use of a deadly firearm in order to forcibly steal possessions and belongings belonging to another individual or entity

Resisting Arrest; the fleeing or stifling of the arrest process enacted by a criminal with regard to a resisting officer or law enforcement agent

Assault; the harming or injuring of one individual by the hands of another

Attempted Murder; fatally-harmful action undertaken in order to cause the purposeful death of another individual

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following persons were associated with the criminal activity undertaken by Bonnie and Clyde:

Raymond Hamilton; a friend of Bonnie and Clyde who accompanied the couple until his arrest

Ira Barrow; the brother of Clyde Barrow who accompanied the couple until he was killed by police

William Daniel Jones; a friend of Bonnie and Clyde replacing Raymond Hamilton subsequent to his capture

Blanche Barrow; the wife of Ira Barrow accompanied the couple until her capture

Victims:  Bonnie and Clyde was charged for the murder of upwards of 10 individuals; 9 of which were law enforcement agents – Bonnie and Clyde were also accused of the kidnapping and robbery of a multitude of individuals

Brown v. Board of Education

Brown v. Board of EducationWhat is Brown v. Board of Education (1954)?

Brown v. Board of Education is considered to be a landmark Supreme Court case contributory the eventual cessation of segregation imposed between African American and Caucasian citizens of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education addressed a circumstance that had taken place within the State of Kansas in the city of Topeka; Linda Brown, who was a third grade student, had been forced to attend a segregated school – the African American students in this school were forbidden from attending school with Caucasian students:

The Case Profile of Brown v. Board of Education

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Brown v. Board of Education’:

Date of the Trial: 1954

Legal Classification: Civil Law; Civil Law is a legal field in that typically addresses nonviolent circumstances and events that are perceived as presumable wrongs suffered – Civil Law  cases this judicial review within Civil Law is typically reliant upon legal statutes in lieu of past court cases, decisions, or preexisting findings

United States Reports Case Number: 347 U.S. 483

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: May 17th, 1954

Legal Venue: 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 Brown v. Board of Education case:

Oliver Brown – named as both the plaintiff, as well as the father of Linda Brown – contended that the separation and segregation taking place within public American educational systems were a direct violation of equal rights afforded to every citizen of the United States

The Board of Education of the State of Kansas was named as the defendant; this Board of Education was cited as violating the Constitution upon enacting segregation within the public educational system

Verdict Delivered: The entirety of Supreme Court Justices delivered a verdict in favor of Oliver Brown; subsequent to this decision, segregation in the United States was overturned and forbidden

Associated Legislation with regard to Brown v. Board of Education: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Brown v. Board of Education trial:

Brown v. Board of Education cited the Louisiana Railway Car Act as a reference to the notion of separate but equal being unconstitutional; Oliver Brown maintained that the segregation of educational systems was an implicit denial of equal rights

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution required that all citizens of the United States be granted equal protection and equal rights; Brown contended that segregation was in direct violation of this statute

Subsequent Cases Associated with Brown v. Board of Education: The following legal cases and trials made mention and reference to the findings undertaken in Brown v. Board of Education:

Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court case that followed suit with associated court cases involving Civil Rights and Equality, such as Plessy v. Ferguson and the Dred Scott Case; however, the verdict delivered in this case was far more favorable than those delivered with regard to similar cases.

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.

 

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

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

Batson v. Kentucky

Batson v. KentuckyThe Background of Batson v. Kentucky (1985)

James Kirkland Batson, an African-American male, was charged with committing a burglary on a home within the State of Kentucky. Prior to the trial – and during the jury selection process – the prosecuting attorney utilized peremptory challenged in order to remove the African-American jurors from the jury; Batson suspected that this was undertaken with regard to eliminating specific individuals who may have decide the verdict of the case in accordance with race:

A Peremptory Challenge utilized within the jury selection process is defined as a litigator maintaining the opportunity to remove or ‘strike’ prospective jurors from serving on a jury with regard to a specific court hearing

The Case Profile of Batson v. Kentucky

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

Date of the Trial: December 12th, 1985

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 James Kirkland Batson against the State of Kentucky within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Batson claimed that the purposeful removal of African-American jurors with regard to his respective hearing was in direct violation of his 6th Amendment rights, requiring every citizen the opportunity for a fair – and unbiased – hearing

United States Reports Case Number: 476 U.S. 79

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 30th, 1986

Legal Venue of Batson v. Kentucky: 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 Batson v. Kentucky case:

James Kirkland Batson; Plaintiff – Batson v. Kentucky

The State of Kentucky; Defendant – Batson v. Kentucky

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Batson, explaining that the exclusion of jurors based on race was a violation of the Equality Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to strike an individual from the jury with regard to race, the litigator must express sufficient evidence unbiased in nature.

Associated Legislation with regard to Batson v. Kentucky: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Batson v. Kentucky 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

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

Texas v. Johnson

Texas v. JohnsonThe Background of Texas v. Johnson (1989)

During the Republican National Convention of 1984 taking place in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson undertook an expression of protest in the form of setting fire to the American Flag. Johnson was an admitted member of a private institution that was comprised of individuals promoting the Communist movement; he enacted his nature of protest in order to presumably express his dissatisfaction with the Republican National Convention and Ronald Reagan. Upon incinerating the American Flag, he was subsequently arrested by the Dallas Police Department on the grounds that he had violated as statewide statute mandating the illegality with regard to the destruction of items and objects considered to be both ‘respected and venerated’; he was fined $2,000:

Although Johnson’s Appeal case took upwards of 4 years to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, it was eventually granted a hearing in 1989

The Case Profile of Texas v. Johnson

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

Date of the Trial: March 21st, 1989

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 the State of Texas against Gregory Lee Johnson within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Johnson stated that his arrest resulting from his setting fire to the American Flag, which he had claim was a sign of protest in lieu of a sign of violence, was a direct violation of his 1st Amendment Rights; as an American citizen, the 1st Amendment both preserved and protected his right of free speech and expression

Johnson also disputed the nature of classification employed with regard to the determination of ‘venerated’ and ‘respected’, claiming that they were rooted in subjectivity in lieu of the public sector

United States Reports Case Number: 491 U.S. 397

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 21st, 1989

Legal Venue of Texas v. Johnson: 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 Texas v. Johnson case:

Gregory Lee Johnson; Plaintiff – Texas v. Johnson

The State of Texas; Defendant – Texas v. Johnson

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that Johnson’s constitutional rights and civil liberties had been violated as a result of his arrest; the Supreme Court claimed that expression without illegality – or the intent to incite illegal recourse – is both protected and lawful under the Constitution

Associated Legislation with regard to Texas v. Johnson: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Texas v. Johnson 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 Charles Manson Murders

The Charles Manson MurdersWho is Charles Manson?

Charles Manson is a notorious American criminal who started and subsequently led what became known as the Manson Family—a violent commune that arose and eventually terrorized the western region of the United States in the late 1960s. As a result of this formation, Charles Manson was found guilty of conspiracy in conjunction with the Tate/LaBianca murders—these high profile murders were carried out by members of Manson’s disruptive clan.

Charles Manson was convicted of the aforementioned murders in alignment with the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy or a criminal organization guilty of crimes that were committed in alignment with the organization’s function. Manson was found guilty under this ruling because he encouraged and persuaded members of “The Family” to savagely murder a number of innocent victims.

What Fueled the Charles Manson Murder?

The Charles Manson murders, as well as the formation of the commune, were sparked through Manson’s belief that an apocalyptic race war was brewing throughout the world and more specifically the United States. During the late 1960s the Civil Rights movement was gaining momentum and effectively changing the basic functions of society.

 Manson developed this notion that a race war was impending through radical interpretations of Beatle’s lyrics, particularly the song “Helter Skelter”, which was commonly written on the walls of the Charles Manson murder scenes. Manson viewed the underlying tone and the song’s title “Helter Skelter” as a formal prelude to an impeding apocalypse driven by race and inequality. As a result of this roundabout connection, Manson was widely linked with pop culture and eventually became an emblem of violence, insanity and macabre—a symbol commonly linked with Manson, which emphasizes ghastly atmospheres and the coming of death.

Charles Manson Murder and the Family

As the family grew in strength and passion, Mansion’s view of the future grew darker. After travelling throughout the Western region of the United States in an old school bus, Manson soon began drawing up violent plans that were to be executed by members of the family. The first Charles Manson murder took place on August 9, 1969 at the home of actress Sharon Tate and director Roman Polanski. The first murder victim was Steven Parent, who was a teenaged boy, parked in the estates driveway. After the murder of Parent, Manson ordered the “Family” to storm the house and murder everyone in it. Actress Sharon Tate and four others, including coffee heiress Abigail Folger, were savagely murdered that night.

After the murders of Tate, Folger, Parent and two others, Manson and the fellow Family members drove to the home of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Upon arriving at the LaBianca residence, Manson ordered three Family members to enter the home, tie up the victims and then proceed to torture and kill them. The Charles Manson Murders, which lasted two days, took the lives of seven people in heinous fashion. The Charles Mansion murder scenes were typically left with bloodshed and messages aligned with the Family’s psychotic ideology.