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

Who 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

What 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 Background of Graham v. Florida (2009)

Terrance Jamar Graham and several other individuals committed the robbery – and rape during the robbery – when they were below the age of 18; the age at which an individual is regarded as a legal adult. As a result of their respective convictions, Graham was sentenced to be executed by the State of Florida. However, Graham appealed his sentencing citing that due to the fact that the crime committed did not involve murder – in addition to the fact that at the time of the crime, he was classified as a minor – capital punishment could be construed as cruel and unusual punishment:

‘A life sentence without the chance of parole, which is also known as a ‘Natural Life Sentence’, is punitive legal recourse enabling State and Federal Governments to punish an individual with incarceration resulting in their respective – and ultimate – death taking place while incarcerated

Minor Law – involving the classification of a minor –defines that individual as one who is below the age of legal adulthood; typically, minors are prohibited from consenting to sexual activity, purchasing controlled substances, authorizing a legal contract through signature, partaking in the consumption of controlled substances, validating participation in an activity or event that requires the presence of a legal guardian, and representing themselves in a court of law

The Case Profile of Graham v. Florida

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

Date of the Trial: November 9th 2009

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 Terrance Jamar Graham against the State of Florida within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Graham maintained that the execution resulting from a crime not involving murder was a violation of his 8th Amendment Rights, protecting him from cruel and unusual punishment

United States Reports Case Number: 08-7412

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: May 17th, 2010

Legal Venue of Graham v. Florida: 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 Graham v. Florida case:

Terrance Jamar Graham; Plaintiff – Graham v. Florida

The State of Florida; Defendant – Graham v. Florida

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the sentencing of Graham, sparing him from execution. The ruling was explained that the sentencing of an individual with what results in a ‘Natural Life’ sentence for crimes committed prior to the age of 18 – and not involving murder – is indeed a violation of the 8th Amendment

Associated Legislation with regard to Graham v. Florida: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Graham v. Florida 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

The Background of Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Troy Leon Gregg was an individual who was incarcerated within the State of Georgia subsequent to his arrest and conviction of the murder of two individuals in 1973; subsequent to his trial, the jury had found Gregg guilty and had sentenced him to death. Gregg was the first individual in the history of the United States whose respective execution was accepted by the Supreme Court of the United States; however, during the evening prior to his execution, Gregg escaped from incarceration and was killed in North Carolina as a result of scuffle in which he was involved:

Capital Punishment, which is also known as the Death Penalty, is the legal process enabling State and Federal Governments to enact executions with regard to convicted criminals for whom the presiding jury has deemed the death penalty to be fair and applicable punishment

The Case Profile of Gregg v. Georgia

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

Date of the Trial: March 30th – 31st, 1976

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 Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, and James Tyrone Woodson against the State of Georgia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Over the course of his incarceration, not only Gregg, but also fellow death row inmates Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, James Tyrone Woodson petitioned that capital punishment was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution

United States Reports Case Number: 428 U.S. 153

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: July 2nd, 1976

Legal Venue of Gregg v. Georgia: 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 Gregg v. Georgia case:

Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Lane Jurek, and James Tyrone Woodson; Plaintiff(s) –

The State of Georgia; Defendant –

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Georgia, stating that the execution of Troy Gregg was Constitutional due to the fact that it was tried, heard and sentenced through the Judicial system; furthermore, the jury who had sentenced him to death were determined to have presumably heard the case details and analyzed them carefully, objectively, and ethically. In addition, the susceptibility of the sentencing to subsequent appeals allows the notion of capital punishment to be ineligible for the classification of cruel or unusual.

Associated Legislation with regard to Gregg v. Georgia: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gregg v. Georgia 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

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

The Background of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

The case of Griswold v. Connecticut addressed a Connecticut statute that prohibited the use of any drug, pharmaceutical, or instrument undertaken in order to serve as contraception for pregnancy.  Estelle Griswold, serving as the director of the Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood – an institution that advocates for the responsible undertaking of sexual activity in order to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy – was cited for the violation of the aforementioned Connecticut statute upon distributing and advocating for the use of prophylactics:

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of circumstances of privacy and private domains; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue infringement and violations

The Case Profile of Griswold v. Connecticut

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

Date of the Trial: March 29th, 1965

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 Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton against the State of Connecticut within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Griswold stated that her arrest was a direct violation of her 14th Amendment Rights, allowing her the right to privacy; she claimed that the Connecticut statute infringed upon personal freedoms belonging – and entitled – to American Citizens

United States Reports Case Number: 381 U.S. 479

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 7th, 1965

Legal Venue of Griswold v. Connecticut: 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 Griswold v. Connecticut case:

Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton; Plaintiff(s) – Griswold v. Connecticut

The State of Connecticut; Defendant – Griswold v. Connecticut

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Connecticut statute forbidding the use of prophylactics, stating that the statute was in direct violation of the expressed right to privacy within a private setting. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that the 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights, which included the 14th Amendment. As a result, the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power with regard to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

Associated Legislation with regard to Griswold v. Connecticut: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Griswold v. Connecticut 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

The Background of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Barbara Grutter, Michigan resident and applicant to the Law School at the University of Michigan, filed an injunction against the university in 2007; subsequent to her rejection from admissions to the University, she had claimed that applicants classified as minorities – possessing inferior academic records than she – were accepted in lieu of her superior academic records. Almost 20 years prior to this case, Allan Bakke had filed an injunction against the University of California for similar reasons – and had his injunction upheld by the Supreme Court:

In the verdict delivered in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), Bakke cited unfair acceptance policies undertaken by the University of California; Bakke mentioned that applicants deemed to be ‘at economical disadvantages’ possessed lower scores than Bakke – Bakke, who had been rejected from the school, mentioned that his 14th Amendment Rights had been violated

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no racial or ethnic preference shall be given or granted to any particular group by any institution or program in receipt of federal funding or monetary restitution

The Case Profile of Grutter v. Bollinger

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

Date of the Trial: April 1st, 2003

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 Barbara Grutter against Lee Bollinger within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Grutter maintained that in accordance to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), she was subject to similar violations of her 14th Amendment Rights; she added that the Equality Clause within the 14th Amendment ensured equal translation and expression of the law without regard to race, religion, creed, gender, or ethnicity

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 306

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 23rd, 2003

Legal Venue of Grutter v. Bollinger: 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 Grutter v. Bollinger case:

Barbara Grutter; Plaintiff – Grutter v. Bollinger

Lee Bollinger; Defendant – Grutter v. Bollinger

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan; in accordance to their ruling, they required the overturning of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke verdict, as well. The reasons for the decision were explained as follows:

Due to the fact that the Law School admission process involved supplemental facets outside of academic records, there was no way to prove that the applicants had been accepted as a result of their respective race(s)

While a quota employed by the admissions committee is indeed a Constitutional violation, the acknowledgment of race with regard to acceptance is defined as the legal protocol innate within Affirmative Action

Associated Legislation with regard to Grutter v. Bollinger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Grutter v. Bollinger 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

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

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.