Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

Kent v United States 1966

The Road to the Supreme Court

This case went to court because Kent collaborated with the police hoping to be tried as a juvenile instead he was tried as an adult. His constitutional rights were violated so the case went to court. At this time there was not a specific procedure established by the court to trial teenagers. Kent was at the mercy of the judge because his finger prints was the main reason he was convicted and a search warrant was not use to collect evidence and the authority wave jurisdiction.

Lawyers: Mr. Arens, Justice John M. Harlan, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Justice William J. Brennan

Judge: Mr. Myron G. Ehrlic

Works cited page

www.lawcornell.edu/supreme court

www.ncjrs.gov/html

openjurist.org/401/kent.v united states

References:

http://jac340juvie.wordpress.com/cases/supreme-court-cases-that-affect-every-juvenile/

The Supreme Court Hearing

The supreme court justices were Abe Fortas,Earl wanton William O. Douglas,Tom c. clark, William j. brennan,jr.Hugo l. black,John m. Harlan,Potter stewart,Byron R.white

The justices voted in 5 for kent and 4 votes against.

Backpground information

The Case's Impact:

What happened? Morris A. Kent jr., a 16 yr old juvenile, residence of Athens, Georgia was interrogated by the police in September 2, 1961 due to a robbery and rape in an apartment. After 4 or 5 days of non-stopping interrogation by the police, Kent confessed to being involved in the case. This case went to court because the suspect was no stranger to the law. Two years before Kent was arrested and finger printed at the age of 14. This time he was not so lucky, Kent was tried and found guilty on 6 counts of house breaking and robbery on June 6, 1967. He was sentenced as an adult to 7 years in an institution and bail was set at $10,000.00.

I belive this was not a fair trial because:

* They fingerprinted him, when he was only fourteen years old.

* The investigation for four days forced him to confess.

* All the evidence was not allow in the court.

* He should have never been tried as an adult.

This created a huge impact in the country because it gives teenagers the right to a fair trial,and most teenagers cannot be trialed as an adult.

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi