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

Acts of Terrorism Explained:

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

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

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

The September 11th Attacks:

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

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

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

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

Attackers:

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

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

The response to the September 11th Attacks:

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

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 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

The Background of Roper v. Simmons (2004)

In 1993, a minor – aged 17 – named Christopher Simmons had both planned and undertaken the murder of a female victim named Shirley Crook; Simmons entered the home of the victim, committed robbery, bound the victim, and proceeded to throw her off of a bridge in a nearby state park. Subsequent to the trial, the court found Simmons to be guilty of all charges and sentenced him to death; in conjunction to the case of Stanford v. Kentucky, the State Court of Missouri maintained that the execution of Simmons was applicable and warranted – however, Simmons appealed his execution due to his status as a minor:

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 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky (1989) mandated that upon sufficient judicial review in accordance with the severity of the crime existing in correlation to the sentencing, the sentencing of a minor between the ages  of 16 and 17 to execution was not in violation of the 8th Amendment

The Case Profile of Roper v. Simmons

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

Date of the Trial: January 26th, 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 Roper against Christopher Simmons within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Simmons contended the sentence, claiming that a sentence of capital punishment was in violation of his 8th Amendment Rights, protecting him from punishment considered to be cruel and unusual

United States Reports Case Number: 543 U.S. 551

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 1st, 2005

Legal Venue of Roper v. Simmons: 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 Roper v. Simmons case:

Roper – acting as the prosecutor for the State of Missouri; Plaintiff – Roper v. Simmons

Christopher Simmons; Defendant – Roper v. Simmons

Verdict Delivered: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Simmons, explaining that executing a minor was indeed cruel and unusual punishment; subsequently, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling set forth within Sanford v. Kentucky – this established the prohibition of the execution of a minor as a result of sentencing.

Associated Legislation with regard to Roper v. Simmons: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Roper v. Simmons 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 Schenck v. United States (1919)

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

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

The Case Profile of Schenck v. United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Background of Strickland v. Washington (1984)

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

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

The Case Profile of Strickland v. Washington

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

Date of the Trial: January 10th, 1984

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strickland; Plaintiff – Strickland v. Washington

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

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

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

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