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?

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

The Background of Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

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

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

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

The Case Profile of Gonzales v. Raich

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

Date of the Trial: November 24th, 2004

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

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

Alberto Gonzales; Plaintiff – Gonzales v. Raich

Angel McClary Raich; Defendant – Gonzales v. Raich

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

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

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

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

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

The 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

The Background of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Catherine Kuhlmeier was a student at the East High School who undertook a position on the schools news publication, which was titled ‘The Spectrum’. The review process with regard to the content of The Spectrum typically involved the Principal of the School undertaking the review of the content and subject matter expressed in the publication. After discovering news stories reflecting teen pregnancy and divorce – albeit attributed with pseudonyms in order to allow the subject of the piece to retain anonymity – the Principal mandated that those specific news stories were a violation of the privacy of the student about whom the story was written; he continued, by stating that the story neither sufficiently protected the identity of the student nor allowed for dissenting opinion due to the presumed anonymity within the news story – the editors of the paper cited that the Principal had violated their respective 1st Amendment rights.

The Case Profile of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier’:

Date of the Trial: October 13th, 1987

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

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the Hazelwood School District against student Catherine Kuhlmeier within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Kuhlmeier argued that the news printed was in accordance to legality with regard to the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; as a result, the denial of the news story was a form of unconstitutional censorship

United States Reports Case Number: 484 U.S. 260

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 13th, 1988

Legal Venue of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: 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 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case:

Hazelwood School District; Plaintiff – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Catherine Kuhlmeier; Defendant – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District, stating that public settings may differ by locale. With regard to a school, the nature of the public sector within publically-funded institutions – such as public schools – is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media, its adherence to legislation, and the discretion of school administration. As a result, schools are not entitled to the breadth of the 1st Amendment as is entitled to jurisdictions existing outside of publically-funded educational facilities.

Associated Legislation with regard to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier 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 Background of Escobedo v. Illinois

The Escobedo v. Illinois trial was a trial that involved the administration of due process, defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; this procedure was presumed to have been violated with regard to both the arrest and conviction of Danny Escobedo. Danny Escobedo was arrested subsequent to the murder of his sister-in-law; a fellow suspect had named Danny Escobedo as the shooter – as a result, Escobedo was interrogated by the police for upwards of 14 hours without access to his attorney. The police department had maintained that due process was not applicable due to the fact that Escobedo had not yet been formally arrested; the interrogation took place en route to the police station.

Only a year prior, the Gideon v. Wainwright case had received a verdict preventing the unlawful detainment resulting from insufficient documentation at the time of an arrest – in addition to the provision of legal counsel to individuals, regardless of financial stature

The Case Profile of Escobedo v. Illinois

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

Date of the Trial: April 29th, 1964

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 Danny Escobedo against the State of Illinois within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Although Escobedo requested Illinois lawyers, he was denied his right to meet with his lawyer until the end of the formal arrest process; during his investigation, the police had deemed that Escobedo indirectly had admitted to participation in the murder – Escobedo maintained that both his 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated

United States Reports Case Number: 378 U.S. 478

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 22nd, 1964

Legal Venue of Escobedo v. Illinois: 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 Escobedo v. Illinois case:

Danny Escobedo; Plaintiff – Escobedo v. Illinois

The State of Illinois; Defendant – Escobedo v. Illinois

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Danny Escobedo, explaining that the interrogation taking place was both biased and subjective; the ruling explained that the police appeared to have targeted Escobedo in lieu of treating him as merely a ‘witness’ or ‘suspect’

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

The 5th and 6th Amendments – respectively – require that arrestees are made aware of their respective right to counsel and trial, as well the right to consult with an attorney; regardless of financial stature

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

The Background of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke occurred upon Allan Bakke, who was listed as a Caucasian male had applied to the University of California Davis school of Medicine in both 1973 and 1974; subsequent to his application – in both instances – he was rejected. Bakke had discovered upon researching the application of individuals who had been accepted and classified with ‘minority statuses’ on their respective applications, that his scores were higher. Furthermore, individuals who were deemed to be ‘at economical disadvantages’ possessed lower scores than Bakke; upon this discovery, Bakke proceeded to bring a lawsuit against the University of California with regard to what he had deemed unfair acceptance practices – he cited the following legislature:

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; Bakke suspected that he was being denied these civil liberties

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; Bakke cited that he was being subject to prejudice in lieu of the precepts expressed within this act

The Case Profile of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Regents of the University of California v. Bakke’:

Date of the Trial: October 8th, 1977

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 Allan Bakke against The University of California and the Davis Medical School

Prejudicial treatment with regard to race, gender, and ethnicity

United States Reports Case Number: 438 U.S. 265

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 1978

Legal Venue: 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 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case:

Allan Bakke as the Plaintiff within Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The University of California, Davis School of Medicine as the Defendant within Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Verdict Delivered: The University of California was found guilty of the violation of both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment

Associated Legislation with regard to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke trial:

The 14th Amendment

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Background of Furman v. Georgia (1972)

In the midst of robbing a home, the owner of the home was awakened by the individual undertaking the robbery – William Henry Furman; in an attempt to escape, Furman proceeded to flee. However, in the midst of his attempt to escape, a firearm that he had been carrying has discharged striking and killing the owner of the home; Furman claimed that the weapon discharged in an accidental fashion. Upon review of the case details, Georgia law and its court explained that due to the fact that the murder took place in the midst of the commitment of a felony, Furman was eligible to be executed in the event of a guilty verdict. Furman appealed his execution explaining that the nature of sentencing for capital punishment lacked uniformity throughout each – and individual – State:

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 Furman v. Georgia

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

Date of the Trial: January 17th, 1971

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 William Henry Furman against the State of Georgia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Furman claimed that his sentencing was a violation of his 14th Amendment rights, illustrating legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’

United States Reports Case Number: 408 U.S. 238

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 19th, 1971

Legal Venue of Furman 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 Furman v. Georgia case:

William Henry Furman; Plaintiff – Furman v. Georgia

The State of Georgia; Defendant – Furman v. Georgia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned Furman’s execution, stating that unless a uniform and unwavering policy of determination for the eligibility to undergo capital punishment exists, the death penalty is to be considered as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment; as a result of this finding, the death penalty was deemed to be illegal within the United States until 1976:

In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was permissible in the event that at the time of the trial, the jury who had sentenced him to death were determined to have presumably heard the case details and analyzed them carefully, objectively, and ethically

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