Unique Law Cases - Essay Example

Running head: law cases 7th June Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) Facts The protest that was led by the Negro high school was based on the discriminatory action by legislative body of South Carolina and citizens against Negros. The protest that was held in 1961 was conducted in state house grounds. In the first 45 minutes, the group peacefully demonstrated without any disorderly act. Despite the advice of the police to the leaders to call off the strike, the group refuted an aspect that made the group to be arrested and be jailed. The members were charged a fine ranging between $10 and $100 or 5 to 30 days in jail. Issues The major issue in this case is to determine whether breach of peace can be regarded as being exact or general. Additionally, it questions if limiting specific conduct, can be due to an opinion that is unpopular. Decisions South Carolina Supreme Court decision was that the state had no power to arrest and charge the demonstrators totally based on the opinions they were expressing. The court indicated that the defendants were convicted of an offense that was general in nature and not of exact definition. The Supreme Court thus reversed the decision of the State Trial Court. Reasoning Due to lack of hostility on the side of demonstrators as well as spectators in addition to lack of clear evidence that the traffic flow was disturbed by the demonstrators made the Supreme Court to reverse the decision. According to the Supreme Court, the state suppressed the demonstrator’s freedom of speech. Dissenting opinion According to the case of Feiner v. New York (1951), the same offence led to the conviction. This was the key reason as to why Mr. Justice Clark gave a dissenting opinion. Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) Facts The case involved Florida A&M students who demonstrated in a non-public drive near a jailhouse premises. Despite being warned by the sheriff, they continued with the demonstrations leading to the arrest of 107 students. After being convicted by Florida Circuit Court as well as the District Court of Appeals, the petitioners indicated that they were denied fourteenth amendments rights. Issues The major issue in this case is to determine whether or not the students had the right to engage in a demonstration on non-public premises. Another issue was to determine whether the jailhouse is included in the category of public office. Decisions According to the Supreme Court, the drives as well as the jailhouse premises are not in the category of public property. Since the petitioners had no intention of seeking service from the jail the abatement argument was dismissed. During the hearing, violation of constitutional rights was not perceived to have an impact on the case. Reasoning During this case, the reasoning was that the state has the right to enforce its rules to protect the ground that is private. There lacked recorded evidence that could be used as the reference during the case. During the case, it was declared that when the sheriff ordered that the students disperse but refused there was nothing unconstitutional about the government to enforce even-handed trespass as indicated in the case. Dissenting opinion According to Justice Douglas, Justice Fortas and Justice Brennan, the court made a mistake in treating the possible violation of freedom to assemble as a trespass. Despite the demonstrations, they argue that the normal operations of the jail were not interfered with and that once the petitioners were ordered to vacate the area they complied with the order. Additionally, the three individuals indicate that the premises was not market No trespassing and the before the petitioners entered the area, the public was not blocked to the premises. U.S. v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000) Facts This case involves Wise, Grebe and Emigh who were arrested after they were involved in sending emails to DEA, FBI, and Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms. During the searches at their homes, dangerous chemicals as well as biomedical catalogues were found. In 1998, Wise, Grebe and Emigh were charged with an attempt to use weapons of mass destruction as well as conspiracy. Issues Appellants argued that there was no adequate evidence due to lack of the terms without lawful authority. Additionally, the appellants argued that based on the fact that Cain was representing the FBI, his actions were lawful (Davenport, 2012). Thus they were for the opinion that the charges should be dropped. Another issue was related to interstate commerce. This implied that sending of emails was a threat to interstate commerce. Other issues were concerned entrapment, referenced improper closing argument and spoliation. Decisions While Emigh was acquitted on all the charges, Wise and Grebe were convicted of two charges and they were fined $200, 292 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. Despite the appeal, it failed and the district judgment stood. Reasoning According to court, the appellant knowingly possessed the weapons of mass destruction thus becoming a violation according to the US law. The district was not correct in bringing spoliation to the judge’s attention. Dissenting opinion The case of U.S. v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000) had no dissenting opinion. U.S. v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980) Facts During this case, Walker, Bailey and Cooley who were the respondent escaped through a window. They were charged for violating § 751(a) for escaping from the jail. Issues Issues that were covered in this case included first, lack of jury in relation to the case as a continuing offense. Secondly, the elements of evil meaning and evil doing are separate and the court used them to arrive at the judgment. Decisions The court of appeals ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court. This is based on the fact that the jury spent a lot of time dealing with the case evidence based on the condition of the penal system. Reasoning It is vital that evidence produced during a case be specific. Through the use of affirmative defense during a case, many elements are supported. As the result of lack of clear evidence during the case, the Supreme Court did not support the purported duress. Dissenting opinions Justice Brennan and Blackmun indicated that the claims of duress and the questionable conditions of the District of Columbia jail, they disagreed with the ruling. In addition, it was argued that the respondents should have been allowed to indicate that by turning themselves in, they were complying with the law. Disorderly conduct Disorderly conduct refers to a statutory crime. It entails disturbing the peace of the public thus offending the members of the public (Disorderly Conduct, 2013). In the case of Adderley v. Florida it shows that if individuals engage in a demonstration in a non-public ground, it violates the right to hold the demonstration. On the other hand, the case of Edwards v. South Carolina indicates that as long as laws are followed and the public is not disrupted, the demonstrations are permissible. Scenarios 1 Since the student sent the threatening emails to the government agencies, they could be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2332a just like in the case of U.S. v. Wise. Additionally, the student would be charged for violating Texas Penal Code 22.07 that is maintained by the state of Texas (Hildreth and Rueda, 2013). It is worth to note that in this case, physical evidence does not need to be there in order for the conviction to be carried out. This indicates that the government would be successful in obtaining a conviction by use of the case of U.S. v. Wise as the reference. Scenario 2 In this scenario, inmate Grady could be charged under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) for escaping from the custody. Just like in the case of U.S. v. Bailey. This is based on the fact that he intentionally left the premises. According to 18 U.S.C. § 4082 (a), any person who fails to remain in a confinement or fails to return within the stipulated time is treated like an escapee (ADDERLEY v. FLORIDA, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). (2013). Despite being drunk, inmate Grady is deemed as an escapee who in liable for charges. References ADDERLEY v. FLORIDA, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). (2013). FindLaw.com. Retrieved on March 8, 2013 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=385&invol=39 Davenport, A. (2012). Basic Criminal Law: The Constitution, Procedure, and Crimes, Third Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. Disorderly Conduct. (2013). Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved on March 9, 2013 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disorderly%20conduct Hildreth & Rueda. (2013). Terroristic Threat. Hildreth & Rueda Law. Retrieved on March 22, 2013 from http://www.youraustinattorney.com/practice-areas/terroristic-threat-in-austin-texas/ Read More