The Background of Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested as a result of driving with a suspended license; he had parked his vehicle and was arrested while on the property of an acquaintance. Shortly after Gant was detained in a police vehicle, the Arizona Police enacted a search of his vehicle in which they discovered cocaine and a firearm; as a result of this search, Gant was not only charged with the operation of a motor vehicle without a license, but also with the possession of a firearm, the possession of cocaine, and the intent to distribute cocaine. Subsequent to his arrest, Gant cited the Arizona Police with undertaking an illegal search and seizure lacking probable cause – a violation of his 4th Amendment Rights.

New York v. Belton (1981) mandated an ideology with regard to the required protocol within an arrest process rooted within an ‘If Arrest, Then Search’ approach with regard to any or all compartments of the vehicle deemed to exist on the ‘passenger’s side’; in accordance to this ruling, the Arizona Police enacted their search of Gant’s vehicle

The Case Profile of Arizona v. Gant

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

Date of the Trial: October 7th, 2008

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 the State of Arizona against Rodney Joseph Gant within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police performed an illegal search of his property resulting from the absence of a search warrant; a search warrant is the expressed, legal permission for applicable – and approved – law enforcement agents to enter the personal, private property belonging to an individual with the intention of placing that individual under arrest

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police had acted in lieu of probable cause, defined as the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual

United States Reports Case Number: 556 U.S. __

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 21st, 2009

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

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

The State of Arizona; Plaintiff – Arizona v. Gant

Rodney Joseph Gant; Defendant – Arizona v. Gant

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gant stating that the police searches are only viewed as constitutional in the event that they result from sufficient probable cause with regard to evidence latent existing in conjunction with the reasoning for the search. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the police lacked sufficient evidence to suspect that Gant would be in violation of anything outside of the illegal operation of a motor vehicle, they overturned his conviction with regard to both the firearm and drug charges.

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

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

In the event that an individual is arrested, criminal law protocol within the United States maintains the innocence of that individual unless they are found guilty within a court of law or they have admitted guilt on their own accord

The Background of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

In 1824, the State Government of New York State allowed for 2 men – Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston – to maintain the authority to regulate the waterways existing between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibson, a facilitator of a commercial steamboat operation existing between New York and New Jersey, was permitted to operate his steamboats on an interstate basis. Aaron Ogden maintained that due to the fact that Gibbons’ actions occurred on an interstate level, the jurisdiction of regulation of Gibbons was under the jurisdiction of the Federal government in lieu of the State Government of New York State; Ogden insisted that Gibbons’ license be revoked. Gibbons’ attorney explained that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution expressed that the Federal government only be permitted to regulate commercial activity existing on an interstate basis that involves ‘Several’ states:

The Commerce Clause within the United States’ Constitution explains that the regulation and oversight of trade involving nations outside of the United States, Native American Tribes, and ‘Several’ States will be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government

The Case Profile of Gibbons v. Ogden

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

Date of the Trial: February 5th, 1824

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 Thomas Gibbons against Aaron Ogden within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gibbons explained that Ogden’s claims were unconstitutional due to the fact that the participation of 2 States neither fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the classification of ‘several’

United States Reports Case Number: 22 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 2nd, 1824

Legal Venue of Gibbons v. Ogden: 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 Gibbons v. Ogden case:

Thomas Gibbons; Plaintiff – Gibbons v. Ogden

Aaron Ogden; Defendant – Gibbons v. Ogden

Verdict Delivered: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ogden, explaining that the Federal Government was eligible for any nature of jurisdiction and regulation of interstate activity – regardless of the number of participatory States – as a result of the Supremacy Clause. This ruling also solidified the term ‘several’ to imply any nature of interstate commerce.

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

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy 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

The Background of Baker v. Carr (1961)

Within the legislation expressed in the Tennessee State Constitution –enacted in 1901 – required that the districts of Tennessee be reformulated every 10 years in order to accommodate an accurate portrayal of the population with regard to each respective jurisdiction. Charles Baker explained that the State had refused to remap the districts in accordance to the precepts set forth within the applicable legislature. Although the State of Tennessee maintained that the adherence to the measures of districts was political in nature, Baker contended that the establishment of districts was a legislative matter:

The nature of legal issues rooted in politics in contrast with those rooted in legislature were called into question with regard to the analysis of Baker’s complaint; Baker brought forth the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution, which mandated the Federal government’s eligibility to maintain jurisdiction over State legislation

The Case Profile of Baker v. Carr

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

Date of the Trial: October 9th, 1961

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 Charles W. Baker against Joe C. Carr – the appointed representative of the State of Tennessee – within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Baker maintained that the legislation expressed in the State of Tennessee’s Constitution in 1901 with regard to the establishment of districts was in direct violation of 14th Amendment Rights entitled to citizens of the United States

United States Reports Case Number: 369 U.S. 186

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 26th, 1962

Legal Venue of Baker v. Carr: 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 Baker v. Carr case:

Charles W. Baker; Plaintiff – Baker v. Carr

Joe C. Carr; Defendant – Baker v. Carr

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court claimed that the State of Tennessee’s refusal to adhere to the expressed legislation of remapping districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires that every individual citizen of the United States be entitled to equal, uniform, and unbiased protection and preservation with regard to the pursuit of happiness.

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

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

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy 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

The Background of Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The case of Gitlow v. New York was a trial that took place in 1925 with regard to the application of the tenets and precepts expressed within the Constitution of the United States – as well as those expressed within the Amendments; this trial addressed both the Federal Government’s – as well as the individual States’ – responsibility to uphold civil liberties expressed within the Consitution. Benjamin Gitlow, who was considered to be both a Socialist – as well as a potential anarchist threat to the United States government, was charged with a violating ‘Anti-Anarchist’ legislature upheld by the State of New York; prior to his arrest, Gitlow had been charged with releasing publications presumed to be latent with Anti-American rhetoric. Subsequent to his initial conviction, Benjamin Gitlow appealed his conviction, stating that his conviction was in direct violation of both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights expressed in the Constitution; the appeal hearing became what is now considered ‘Gitlow v. New York’.

The Case Profile of Gitlow v. New York

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gitlow v. New York’:

Date of the Trial: November 23rd, 1923

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 %%% against %%%%

Although Gitlow was convicted of violating applicable legislation enacted within the State of New York prohibiting expression considered to be ‘Anti American’, Gitlow appealed his conviction accusing the State of New York of violating his Constitutional rights

United States Reports Case Number: 268 U.S. 652

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 8th, 1925

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: William H. Taft

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gitlow v. New York case:

Benjamin Gitlow – the plaintiff – was an social activist and author

The State of New York – the defendant – was cited for a violation of Gitlow’s Constitutional rights

Verdict Delivered: Benjamin Gitlow remained guilty of his crimes, but the Supreme Court mandated that individual State governments were unable to deny their residents the civil and human rights expressed within the Constitution of the United States

Associated Legislation with regard to Gitlow v. New York: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gitlow v. New York trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution ensures that all citizens of the United States are afforded the freedom of speech; this statute also includes the freedom to express oneself in accordance to accepted and undertaken legislation and legality – this statute includes the freedom to join and participate in activities and engagements upon choosing to do so without threat or duress

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

What were the Nuremberg Trials?

The Nuremberg trials were a series of international trials that were held in the German city of Nuremberg. The trials, which were of a criminal nature, took place in the wake of the Second World War. During the Nuremberg trials, the Allied Forces aimed to bring the architects of the Nazi regime to legal justice; the Allied forces, through the Nuremberg trials, tried numerous individuals who were aligned with the Nazi war machine. Although these efforts were applauded and deemed as noble, many of the premier participants in the Nazi regime were absent from the Nuremberg trials—many Nazis evaded capture by fleeing to other countries.

In the early months of 1943, the Allied forces agreed that some form of tribunal must be developed and held after the war to bring the Nazis to justice. The Allied forces developed and delivered this tribunal to hold the Nazis accountable for their atrocious war crimes—which were viewed as going far and beyond the norm expected in a war.

The Nuremberg trials were viewed as a benchmark and fundamental buttress for international law; the Nuremberg trials were a radical development of the International criminal justice system that ultimately played a principal role in the drafting of documents—such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Nuremberg Trials Explained:

The Nuremberg trials opened in 1945, as cases were brought against 22 prominent members of the Nazi regime. 12 of these 22 cases resulted in the delivery of death sentences for egregious violations of basic human rights. The Nuremberg trials, due to the precedent set and the overall viciousness of the Nazi regime, cited the Nuremberg laws, which were in essence the framework of the Nazi regime’s brutal actions.

In the first year of the Nuremberg trials, the stand was taken by individuals who played a fundamental part in creating and implementing the ideology of the Nazi regime. Through 1949, the Nuremeberg trials effectively brought lesser Nazi regime members to justice. The Nuremberg laws, when implemented in the Nuremberg trials, established volumes of case materials which would be ultimately used as precedents in future cases that involved blatant violations of human rights. The Nuremberg trials were implemented by Britain, the United States, Russia and France.

The Nuremberg Laws:

The Nuremberg laws were a series of anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany that were introduced during the Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi party. The Nuremberg laws classified individuals based on their lineage; those with four German grandparents were referred to as German or possessing “kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewsih grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was referred to as a Mischling or a crossbreed of “mixed blood”. The Nuremberg laws deprived Jewish people of receiving German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Germans and those individuals who were of Jewish decent.

The Nuremberg laws also placed a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as Jewish and non-Jewish Germans. In addition, the Nuremberg laws prevented Jewish people from participating in German civic life.

What is an Act of Terror?

An act of terrorism refers to a systematic and diabolical use of terror as a means of coercion. Granted, there is no universally criminal law definition of terrorism; however, common characteristics of a terrorist act will incorporate the institution or delivery of violent acts, which are intended to precipitate fear on a given society or nation. A terrorist act is typically carried out for a political, ideological or religious goal; terrorists deliberately target and subsequently perpetuate violence without regard as to the safety of civilians in hopes of forcefully instilling an ideological principle.

A terrorist organization, to achieve their intended goals, will use violence to augment fear in a given society; violent acts, when delivered to a society at random, invariably make a community or nation fearful.  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 World Trade Center Bombing:

On February 26th, 1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. The World Trade Center bombing was sparked through the detonation of a 1,500 lb. urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced bomb. This device, as intended to topple the North Tower into the South Tower, effectively collapsing both buildings while killing thousands of people. Although this plan ultimately failed, the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 killed seven people and injured close to 1,100.

Who Planned the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993?

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was planned by an organization of extremists including, Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Mahmud Abouhalima, Nidal Ayyad, Ahma Ajaj and Abdul Rhman Yasin. This group received funding to enact the World Trade Center Bombing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed—Ramzi Yousef’s Uncle.

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was precipitated by three principle demands, laid out by the terrorists to local newspapers before the attack. Yousef, who mailed various letters to New York newspapers, stating that the United States must cut-off aid to Israel, put an end to the United States’ diplomatic relations Israel, and end all interference with any Middle Eastern affairs. Yousef, in these letters, stated that the World Trade Center bombing would merely be the first act of terrorism if his demands were not met. Furthermore, Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was a direct act of terrorism, but it was a justified action, because “the terrorism that Israel practices and America supports must be faced with a similar one.”

World Trade Center Bombing Investigation and Arrests:

Following the World Trade Center Bombing, numerous agents and technicians of the ATF, FBI and NYPD quickly responded on the scene. In the days following the World Trade Center Bombing, investigators combed through the rubble in the underground parking lot where they ultimately located a piece of the bomb’s transport vehicle. A vehicle identification number was eventually obtained, which led them to investigate where the rental truck came from. Investigators determined that the vehicle was rented by Mohammad Salameh—one of Yousef’s chief conspirators.

Salameh’s eventual arrest led police to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin; Yasin was eventually taken to FBI headquarters; however, he was released and escaped the following day back to Iraq—Yasin remains on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list.

In March of 1994, four men (Abouhalima, Ajaj, Salameh and Ayyad) were convicted of carrying out the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993. The charges included: conspiracy, the explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, Yousef and Eyad ismoil, were formally convicted for their role in the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993.

The Background of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

In 2001, the Defendant Yaser Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan in the midst of the military operations undertaken by the United States in that region. Although Hamdi was a citizen of the United States, he was apprehended while fighting alongside the Taliban – a faction considered to be an enemy of the United States; upon his apprehension, Hamdi was extradited to the United States and detained at a military prison within the State of Virginia. Within his apprehension, Hamdi claimed that he was denied legal counsel; Hamdi also claimed that he was being unlawfully detained:

Article II of the United States’ Constitution implements the separation of administrative jurisdiction, specifically outline the prohibition from any branch of the Federal government from infringing upon the protection and preservation of national security

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Hamdi – the protocol regarding American citizens classified as enemies of the United States

The Case Profile of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

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

Date of the Trial: April 28th, 2004

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 Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi against Donald H. Rumsfeld – acting as the Secretary of Defense of the United States – within the trial brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Hamdi accused the Federal Government of violating his 8th Amendment Rights, which entitle American Citizens to subjugation to due process; this not only requires a fair hearing to take place – in addition to the provision of legal counsel – but also provides protection against unlawful detainment

United States Reports Case Number: 542 U.S. 507

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 2004

Legal Venue of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: 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 Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case:

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi; Plaintiff(s) – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Donald H. Rumsfeld; Defendant – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that his arrest had violated the Due Process Clause outlined within the Constitution; this clause is defined as 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 violence and harm. The ruling stated that Hamdi would be entitled to a fair trial in accordance with the 8th Amendment

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

Subsequent to an arrest, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

What are Child Abuse Cases?

Child Abuse Cases are defined as legal trials addressing the alleged mistreatment of children or minors; these offenses are considered to result in a variety of harmful and damaging to both the safety and wellbeing of the child victim. Charges within child abuse cases can range with regard to the implicit details and circumstances in which an alleged offense was reported as taking place:

Child abuse cases undertaking the legal hearing child abuse can take place in a direct, physical fashion, which includes attacks and sexual assault – however, child abuse can take place verbally and psychologically

Due to the fact that child abuse occur within a variety of settings, which may include a variance with regard to the abuser, the nature of abuse undergone, as well as the repercussions resulting from the child abuse offense

Types of Child Abuse Cases

Within the legal spectrum of Child Abuse Cases, 4 primary types of child abuses are considered to be amongst the most prominent and prevalent classifications of this crime:

Physical child abuse cases are considered to retain the most heightened nature of evidence with regard to the effects of this crime; due to the prominent nature of both the signs and effects of physical child abuse, bodily harm, injury, bruises, cuts, burns, and abrasions are common results of this type of child abuse

Emotional, Mental, Psychological Child Abuse is considered to be amongst the least exact, due to the common lack of physical evidence or signs; victims of this type of child abuse may be subjected to threats, exploitation, insult, and verbal assault from their abusers

Child abuse cases addressing the presumed mistreatment or neglect of a child will typically include a violation of that child’s rights and entitled freedoms; children’s rights provide that children are entitled to their respective parents or guardians providing them with a sufficient quality of life – this includes food, shelter, water, and the ability to participate in social and educational undertakings

Sexual child abuse cases are defined as legal hearings addressing the presumed violation of the rights of children or minors with regard to both an expressed age of consent in conjunction with the engagement in sexual activity; sexual activity in which minors or children are participatory is considered to be illegal, unethical, and unlawful in nature – this can include molestation, sexual activity, and intercourse

Famous Child Abuse Cases

The following are amongst the most notorious child abuse cases that have taken place within the United States:

The McMartin Nursery School Child Abuse Case

The Joel Steinberg Child Abuse Case

The Child Abuse Case of Dave Pelzer

The Roman Polanski Child Abuse Case

The Warren Jeffs Child Abuse Case

Reporting Child Abuse Cases

In the event that you have been abused, are aware of child abuse currently taking place, or are aware of child abuse that has taken place in the past, you are encouraged to contact the Child Abuse Hotline through their toll-free telephone number: 1-800-4-A-CHILD or 1-800-422-4453; all calls are kept confidential and private.

What is the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping Case?

The Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping case, which is commonly referred to as the ‘Lindbergh Kidnapping’ – as well as its more sensationalized title as ‘The Crime of the Century’ – was a criminal investigation and legal trial involving the kidnapping and murder of the 2 year old son of Charles Lindbergh. Chas A. Lindbergh, the son of the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, was reported as being taken from the Lindbergh home in Hopewell, New Jersey on March 1st, 1932 between the hours of 8pm and 10pm.

Who was Charles Lindbergh?

Charles Lindbergh, born on February 4th, 1902, was considered to be one of the most prominent aviators of his time. Between May 20th and May 21st in 1927, Charles Lindbergh completed the longest nonstop, single passenger, international flight spanning from Long Island, New York to Paris France; Charles Lindbergh achieved this aviary feat in his famed airplane The Spirit of St. Louis. Subsequent to his achievement, Charles Lindbergh was lauded as a national hero; as a result, the kidnapping and murder of his son was given an enormous amount of public and media attention.

The Details of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

On March 1st, 1932, Chas A. Lindbergh was reported to have been abducted from Charles Lindbergh’s home; on May 12th, 1932, the corpse assumed to belong to Chas A. Lindbergh was discovered in the woods nearby the Lindbergh home – upon medical investigation, the cause of death was assumed to be blunt force trauma to the skull, which resulted in a massive skeletal fracture:

Bruno Hauptmann, a German Jew who had immigrated to the United States was accused of both leaving a ransom note demanding the monetary compensation for the safe return of Chas A. Lindbergh; subsequent investigations reported that Hauptmann had used a homemade ladder to access Charles Lindbergh’s home in order to abduct Chas A. Lindbergh – Charles Lindbergh was a known proponent of Anti-Semitism

Subsequent to his trial, within which he maintained his innocence, Bruno Hauptmann was found guilty for kidnapping and sentenced to death; he was executed on April 3rd, 1936

The Mishandling of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping Case

The investigation of the Lindbergh Kidnapping continued after the arrest, conviction, and execution of Bruno Hauptmann; this was due to the fact a multitude of criminology and legal experts maintained that this case was egregiously mishandled by both Charles Lindbergh and the prosecution. As evidence and case studies surfaced, Hauptmann’s guilt was not only questioned, but also denied; the following case details of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping case suggest the unfounded evidence and legal flaws latent within the case itself:

Bruno Hauptmann was offered both $90,000, in addition to being spared from execution in the event that he pled guilty to the crime of which he was accused; although a confession would have entitled his family to a large sum of money ensuring their livelihood as well as prevented Hauptmann’s death, both Hauptmann and his wife Anna refused to deliver such a confession – until the time of her death, she maintained her husband’s innocence

The forensic report with regard to both the make of the ladder presumed to be built by Hauptmann was deemed to be incorrect, as well as the identification of the corpse of Chas A. Lindbergh was deemed to be inconclusive

Currently, the legal handling of the Charles Lindbergh Kidnapping case is considered by many to be a legal travesty as a result of the presumed mishandling of the case

Who was Baby Face Nelson?

Lester Joseph Gills, who was more commonly referred to in accordance with his nickname ‘Baby Face Nelson’, was an individual who was classified as a member of organized criminal organizations throughout the late 1920s and early 1930s until the time of his death. In contrast to his seemingly docile nickname, Baby Face Nelson was considered to be amongst the most dangerous, volatile, and violent criminals to have existed within the history of the United States. Over the course of his criminal activity, Baby Face Nelson was accused with a variety of criminal activities, which ranged from murder to racketeering; furthermore, Baby Face Nelson was associated with some of the most notorious and prolific criminals of his time:

Baby Face Nelson was first arrested in 1921 at the age of 13; he was accused of shooting another child with a gun that he had found; subsequent to his release from a juvenile facility, Baby Face Nelson continued to participate in a wide range of criminal activity

Baby Face Nelson was considered to be ‘Public Enemy Number One’ prior to his death in 1934; this was a classification utilized at the time by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) – this classification signified that that the individual classified as such was of the utmost danger to society

The Case Profile of Baby Face Nelson

The following is a case profile of both the crimes of Baby Face Nelson, as well as a legal classification of statutory legislation associated with the case:

Date of Birth: Baby Face Nelson was born on December 6th, 1908; he was killed on November 27th, 1934 by law enforcement agents – he was 25 years old

Residence: Baby Face Nelson frequented the Chicago area within his early years; after briefly traveling to the Western United States with the intent to commit robbery, he returned to Illinois – he was killed in Wilmette, Illinois

Dates of Crimes: Despite his arrest at 13 years of age, many historians classify Baby Face Nelson’s crime spree as lasting from 1928 to his death in 1934

Criminal Charges: Murder, Robbery, and Racketeering were amongst the many criminal charges associated with Baby Face Nelson

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

Baby Face Nelson first partnered with Al Capone in a variety of Racketeering operations; however, due to Baby Face Nelson’s violent demeanor and erratic tendencies, Al Capone distanced himself from association with Baby Face Nelson

At the end of his life, Baby Face Nelson joined John Dillinger in a variety of robberies and prison escapes; Baby Face Nelson was considered to be amongst the closest to John Dillinger

Victims:  Although there does not exist a concrete determination of the number of Baby Face Nelson’s victims, reports have stated that he is responsible for the deaths of more FBI Agents than any other criminal in the history of the United States