Whitney v California, Illinois v Gates, Dred Scott v Sandford - Essay Example

Case Briefs Whitney V California, 274 U.S.357 (1927) Facts Anita Whitney belonged to one of the distinguished families in California; her conviction came following the pursuit of the 1919 act, criminal syndicalism. The allegation for his persecution was that she aided in the establishment of the communist Labour party, the state had gathered evidence relating to the group and found out that it was devoted to violent teachings with the ultimate goal to overthrow the government then. On her defence, Whitney distanced herself from the claims that the group or herself never intended to an instrument of violence fashioned to overthrow the government as alleged by the state (Whitney 46). Issues During the reign of governor of California, William Stephens, syndicalism was criminalized and those found guilty of it were to be charged by the state for a criminal offence. In this regard, syndicalism was defined as an attempt to replace capitalism with other economic systems through confederation of collectivized unions. Rule In the adjudication of this case, the question that was before the judges was to judicially determines if the 1919 act that enshrined syndicalism as a criminal offence in California violated the provision of the fourteenth Amendments that highlighted equal protection and due process clauses. In the ruling of the court, the judges in a vote that resulted into 9-0 arrived into a determination that it did not violate the provision necessitating Whitney’s conviction (Whitney 49). In his ruling, Justice Sanford provided a written judgment regarding the case for the majority of the seven judges, he invoked Holmes test of clear and present danger and went further in his ruling by declaring that the state has a duty to punish anyone who is deemed to have abused the freedom of speech as provided in the constitution. He said that utterances that by their nature tend to incite the public, compromise on their peace or endanger the operation of an organized government by overthrowing it is punishable by law. Application The determination of this case was also used as a list of authorities in the adjudication of a case Brandenburg v Ohio in 1969. It is very interesting to note that even though the determination of Whitney’s case was to be used as a list of authorities in this case, it culminated into the overruling of the Whitney v California case (Whitney 57). In the ruling from the United States Supreme Court, the court determined that the government could not reprimand inflammatory speeches unless it can be proved that the intent was to incite and the speech itself also has the potential to incite as alleged. Conclusion From the ruling of Whitney V California case, it will be found that the provision of the law do overlap and without critical legal evaluation of the provision of the law, determination of the cases can be very detrimental to the accused, it therefore requires full understanding of a statute and its intention before the judiciary enforces it. Illinois v Gates, 462 U.S.213 Facts In this case that took place in May 1978, the police in Bloomingdale, Illinois, did receive an anonymous letter that gave detailed information on the conduct of Sue and Lance Gates as drug dealers. It accounted for their itinerary and how they transit drugs from one point to the next, the police then took initiative to make a follow up of the reported case with approval of the warrant to make a search on Sue and Lance from the court. When the police tracked the two, they indeed found marijuana in their car and additional drugs in the house together with other weapons. The case was taken to the Supreme Court after it was ruled that the search was against the law and that the decision of the judge to issue a warrant on anonymous tip was unlawful (Carmen and Walker 51a). Issues The issues surrounding the case were whether it was in order for the police to use a warrant based on anonymous source to conduct a search. Earlier in the Illinois circuit courts, the case had been determined given the fact that the search was illegal and the court cited the ruling of Spinelli v United States, the determination of this case was appealed in the US Supreme Court for review of the Illinois appellate court’s decision (Carmen and Walker 57a). Rule It will be appreciated that this case was ruled in two phases, at the Illinois state courts and at the supreme courts of the United States of America. In the ruling at the Illinois circuit courts level, the determination was that the case could not hold given that the warrant obtained from the court was not supported by the law on the fact that it was on partially corroborated anonymous tip off. However, when the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, the decision of the judges at the Illinois courts was overturned, in a ruling that pitched the judges to a vote of 6-3. The prosecutors won the case and Justice Rehnquist made the following statement; that they are in agreement with the ruling of the Illinois courts that the informant’s reliability, basis of knowledge, and veracity are of interest in the determination of the case. The disagreement however comes in when the information is completely disregarded and used rigidly even if they can be used for the illumination of common sense (Carmen and Walker 61b). This made the court of law to disregard the use of Aguilar-Spinelli test that is used to determine the legitimacy of a search warrant. Application This was a significant ruling since it did not focus on the Aguilar-Spinnelli test of determining the validity of a search warrant, observing the test would have allowed the case to be decided otherwise negating pursuit of the law. Conclusion In relation to the fourth amendment of the US law, the search and the seizure were in compliance and consistence with the law, if the court could have ruled that the search was against the provision of the law then it could have created a bad precedence in which criminals would have not been prosecuted even in the imminent information. In this sense, there would be no constitutional importance of the ruling based on the provision of the fourth amendment. Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S.393, 358 U.S.307 (1959) Facts In the United States, there was slavery, the slaves in most cases were of African origin; and there were those that approved slavery while others did not. In those states that did approve slavery, slaves of African origin were not treated as the citizen of the US and had no legal position to sue those considered by the law to be US citizens. In slavery-free states, there was no such legal discrimination and black Americans of African origins enjoyed equal rights and were treated as citizens of the US (Carmen and Walker 31b). Dred Scott, being an African American slave who worked for the master in Illinois, a state in which slavery was abolished, sued his master for compensation since he was treated as a slave in a territory that is considered free and does not approve slavery. Issues In relation to the case that was taken to court by Dred Scott, the central issues in this case was that should a master who migrates with a slave from a state that tolerates slavery top that which abandoned slavery and treats everybody the same compensated the salve. Dred Scott argued that he was made to be a slave in a zone that prohibited slavery therefore the master was legally obliged to compensate him for the duties he undertook (Carmen and Walker 36b). Rule In more than two occasions, Scott lost the case in the federal courts based on several technicalities, in the first attempt of the case in court; the Missouri court dismissed Scott’s case on technicality given that he failed to adduce evidence by witness that in deed he was a slave to Eliza Emerson. When he was granted a new trial in 1957, the supreme court of Missouri found determined the case that Scoot was still a slave and was supposed to sue for freedom when the master took him to a free state. On the case filed against his current owner, John Sanford, Scott lost the case again given the precedent that was created by the Missouri court and appealed in the US Supreme Court that finally made a ruling that was voted 6-3 (Carmen and Walker 40b). This was corroborated it with a ruling that neither Scott nor any other person of African origin has the legal right to sue in a court as they remain to be non-citizens of the US, this negated filing of the case on diversity grounds. Application Following the decision of the ruling, there has never been another case of similar nature to which the decision of the court on this case could be used for determination of other cases as a list of authorities. Conclusion In reference to this case, it is reasonable to conclude that the application of the law is selective given that there were previous precedents that had perceived slaves as the citizens of the US. When it came to Scott’s case, the fact of slaves being US citizens was disregarded and decided on the basis that Scott was legally a citizen in the US. Burton v United States - 391 U.S.123 (1968) Facts This was a case of a joint petition in which Evans and others were accused of armed postal robbery. In his adduce of evidence, the postal inspector informed the court that Evans had confessed to him that him together with the rest in the petitioners list had robbed the bank. The confession that was given by Evans in this case was oral and was not recorded or given in any other form that could be verified in a court of law. The fact that the confession was made orally and resulted into the conviction Evans and the petitioner, Evans and the petitioner decided to appeal the case for a fresh determination that was based on the efficacy of oral confession to enable determination of a case (Carmen 39). Issues The main issue in this case was the reliability of an oral confession to warrant a determination of a case against the accused. Whereas the Evans confessed to the postal master of his involvement together with the petitioner in the robbery of the postal premises, it was not sufficient evidence to allow for a criminal conviction as decided by the Missouri judge in the first case. Rule When the case was appealed in the court of appeal, it was decided that the oral admission by Evans of his involvement in the postal robbery could not be determined by solely relying on the evidence adduced. The court then set aside the case in favour of Evans and the petitioner terming the evidenced used inadmissible hearsay that cannot be used against the petitioner and that such evidenced are not sufficient in determining the guilt or innocence of the petitioner (Carmen 49). The overall argument by the court of an appeal was that the oral evidence that was given to the postal master ought not to have been used solely of the determination of the petitioner’s guilt. Application Following the determination of Burton’s case, the judgement was later used in 1986 in Cruz v New York case, which also involved a joint trial of defendants in the supreme court of the US. It was determined that the confrontation clause should fail the admission of non-testifying co-defendant from incriminating other defendant, in fact, the clause fail to admit even the admission of defendant’s self-confession against self. In the same statement, Justice Scalia concluded that in the absence of a co-defendant, other defendant’s confession can be used in a trial for the assessment of the co-defendant’s self-statement if it is reliable and can be used against him even though there is complete lack of cross examination (Carmen 51). Conclusion In a court of law, evidence is the only way of ascertaining the theory for determination. Evidence can be altered of fabricated, that is why in the cases of joint trial, and confession must be fully examined with the rest of the co-defendant’s statement in order to arrive into a verifiable opinion to enable the determination of the case. Weems v United States, 217 U.S.349 (1910) Facts Paul A Weems served as a disbursing officer in the Bureau of Coast Guard and Transportation where he was charged with the offence falsifying public document with the intention of defrauding the government, he was charged in Philippine court, was found guilty, and sentenced 15 years in jail coupled with a fine of 4,000 Philippine pesos (Douglas and Olshaker 27). The supreme court of the Philippine Island, following these charges, reached the decision, Weems then filed a demurrer to challenge the charges, and unfortunately, it was not considered and overruled. He then proceeded to file a writ of error with the supreme court of the US denouncing charges against him as being outrageous and that the conviction he was given should be overruled by the court (Walker 73). Issues In the legal battle, several issues became palpable which included the fact that the Philippine’s court overruled Weems Demurrer irregularly, this was based on the fact that the body to which the he was accused of working for as a disbursing officer did not exist. Secondly, the court records failed to provide a proof that Weems was actually tried in the court for his sentencing to be justified, lastly, the 15 years sentencing that was given by the Philippine’s court was perceived to be cruel and unusual that needed review (Douglas and Olshaker 33). Rule According to the US supreme court, a determination over the case was reached as follows; in the first error assignment, the court found that it was actually incorrect and the judges went ahead to read all the US and Philippine’s criminal code of procedure which requires that in the prosecution. The accused should be provided with the relevant information that will enable him to understand and know the intention of the prosecution and in the case of any defect in the matter of form there should be no any form of trial, judgment or proceedings that should be made upon the case. In the second and the third issue, the court also found that the charges given to Weems were far above the required sentencing, it also noted that the decision that was reached by the Philippine judge was unconstitutionally cruel and repugnant to the bills of right. The court, based on the unravelled facts, dismissed the case on Weems as having no basis to enable him be prosecuted (Tanenhaus 48). Application Because of the uniqueness of this case, it has not been used as a list of authorities in the determination of other cases of similar nature, in this regard; the application of this case on other cases is not documented. Conclusion Determination of a case and a penalty in a court of law is influenced by many factors that are either constitutional or otherwise. It should be in the full knowledge of the accused why allegations are advanced on him, this allows for the accused to prepare his defence, Weems was not accorded this by the Philippine’s court. Works Cited Carmen, Rolando V., and Jeffery T. Walker. Briefs of 100 leading cases in law enforcement. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Pub. Co., 1991a. Print. Carmen, Rolando V., and Jeffery T. Walker. Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement -.. 7th ed. Burlington: Elsevier Science, 2008b. Print. Carmen, Rolando V. del. Briefs of leading cases in law enforcement. 8th ed. Waltham, MA: Anderson Publishing, 2012. Print. Douglas, John E., and Mark Olshaker. The cases that haunt us: from Jack the Ripper to Jon Benet Ramsey, the FBI's legendary mind hunter sheds light on the mysteries that won't go away. New York: Scribner, 2000. Print. Tanenhaus, David Spinoza. Encyclopaedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2008. Print. Walker, Jeffery T. Briefs of Leading Cases in Law Enforcement. Atlanta: Routledge, 2010. Print. Whitney, Anita. The record of the trial in which Charlotte Anita Whitney was convicted of criminal syndicalism. Opinions in the District Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court; briefs and papers filed in the United States Supreme Court ... microfilmed fro. New York: CRC Press, 1953. Print. Read More