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.

The Background of Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Martin McFadden, who was a police officer in the State of Ohio’s Cleveland Division, had noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting in a nature perceived as suspicious by McFadden. Upon observing the two individuals from his patrol car, McFadden had noticed that the two men appeared to be planning some nature of criminal activity; the two men were reported to be pacing and periodically peering into the window of a storefront – in the interim, the two would return to each other and engage in a discussion. McFadden approached the two men and identified himself as a police officer, ushering them into a nearby store; subsequent to this, he undertook a ‘frisk’ of the two men; a frisk is defined as the patting or feeling of the garments donned by an individual under the suspicion of the concealment of contraband on that individual’s person. McFadden’s frisk rendered the discovery of a handgun, and the individuals were apprehended on charges of carrying concealed firearms:

The defense of the arrestee – John W. Terry – claimed that Officer McFadden lack sufficient probable cause, which is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; government officials must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue damage or harm

The Case Profile of Terry v. Ohio

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

Date of the Trial: December 12th, 1967

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 W. Terry against the State of Ohio within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

John Terry claimed that his arrest was the result of an invasion of privacy implemented through the violation of his 4th Amendment rights protecting him – as well as every citizen of the United States – from unlawful searches and seizures conducted by law enforcement agents

United States Reports Case Number: 392 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 10th, 1968

Legal Venue of Terry v. Ohio: 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 Terry v. Ohio case:

John W. Terry; Plaintiff – Terry v. Ohio

The State of Ohio; Defendant – Terry v. Ohio

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Ohio, mandating that McFadden’s search was prompted by reasonable and verifiable suspicion, defined as a probable cause rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being, as well as the protection and preservation of public safety from potential criminal activity

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

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

The Background of Texas v. Johnson (1989)

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

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

The Case Profile of Texas v. Johnson

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

Date of the Trial: March 21st, 1989

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

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the State of Texas against Gregory Lee Johnson within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

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

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

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

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

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

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

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

Gregory Lee Johnson; Plaintiff – Texas v. Johnson

The State of Texas; Defendant – Texas v. Johnson

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

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

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

The 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