Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Untitled Prezi

No description
by

Julie Gagliardi

on 8 April 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Untitled Prezi

Background:
Keisha Dixon arrested for illegally purchasing firearms.
Claimed that if she didn't purchase them her violent boyfriend may hurt her and her children.
Appealed to Fifth Amendment Court of Appeals, saying that it wasn't her responsibility to carry the burden of proving her duress.
Question: Whose job is it to prove a duress defense.
Answer:
7 to 2 decision in favor of U.S.
It is the defendant's responsibility to prove their own defense.
Importance: This case clearly outlined whose job it is to prove a duress defense. Dixon v. United States (2006) Background:
Apprendi shot a gun at an African-American family’s home because of their race and later retracted the idea.
Charged with second-degree use of a firearm for unlawful purposes, which leads to a sentence of 5 to 10 years in prison but was not charged under the hate crime statute. The prosecutor filed to enhance the sentence.
The court ruled that the crime was motivated to intimidate another race and as a result he was given a 12-year sentence in jail.
Apprendi claimed that the Due Process clause requires that he be convicted of a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require that any fact that enhances the penalty of a crime be brought to a jury?
Answer: Yes, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court stated that a fact that enhances a penalty of a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be brought before a jury.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy: This ensures that more cases be brought before a jury and extends the range over which juries have a say in the conviction of their peers.This means that any citizen regardless of his crime can only have their sentence enhanced when brought before his/her peers. This slows the judicial process and makes it more difficult for sentences to be given out. Apprendi v. New Jersey (1999) Background:
Workers Compensation Act of Pennsylvania states that once an employer’s and employee’s liability has been established, then either one or the other is responsible for paying the medical treatment.
Later this Act was amended so that insurers could withhold payment for disputed treatments.
Question: (1) Can a private insurers action of withholding a disputed payment be considered a state action, and thus bring them under the Fourteenth Amendment? (2) Do workers have a constitutionally protected right to payment and medical treatment?
Answer: No to both. In an 8-1 decision, the court stated that a deprivation must be caused by state law and fairly attributed to the state to be under the scrutiny of the Fourteenth Amendment. While the deprivation in this case was due to state law, it is not attributed to the state’s actions. The creation of that dispute does not make the state directly involved in the conflict. Also, the insurers were not acting because of the state’s decision, but only the absence of regulation. In response to the second question, the workers were not entitled to payment of medical treatment, only that which is “reasonable” and “necessary.” American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. Sullivan (1998) Background:
Richards private government employee
Found ocupation tax to be unconstitutional
Other smaller cases barred
Question: May the Alabama residents continue with the suit even though the other, smaller cases had been barred?
Decision:
Unanimously favored Richards
Smaller cases that have been barred shouldn't prevent citizens from retrying a case on a law that is potentially unconstitutional.
Importance: Clearly outlined how to proceed on similar cases. Richards v. Jefferson County (1995) Background: A respondent being convicted of murder wanted his charge to be vacated because a juror in his trial handed in an application to work at the District Attorney’s Office and the prosecutors withheld their knowledge on the matter during trial.
Question: Was due process process denied by the juror applying for a job at the District Attorney’s Office or by the prosecutors who failed to disclose the job application to the court.
Answer: The court ruled that the respondent was not denied due process by the actions of the juror or the prosecutors.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy:
Smith v Phillips ruled that due process does not require a new trial every time a juror is placed in a potentially compromising situation.
Now all court cases are conducted without a mistrial if a juror is placed in a potentially compromising situation. Smith v. Phillips (1982) Background:
Wolff and other inmates at a Nebraska prison, filed a complaint for damages in which he alleged:
that disciplinary proceedings at the prison violated due process
the inmate legal assistance program did not meet constitutional standards
the regulations governing inmates' mail were unconstitutionally restrictive.
Question: Did the prison system fail to meet the rights of the prisoners to due process through disciplinary proceedings, a legal assistance program, and by restricting mail service to inmates?
Answer:
Court ruled in favor of Wolff 6 votes to 3 votes.
Inmates may lose their privilege to sentence reductions but due process demands that certain procedures be in place so inmates are not deprived of their freedom.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy: Established prisoners’ rights to:
be notified of charges against them before their disciplinary hearings.
call witness’ to testify at their hearings.
assistance in presenting a defense
an impartial decision maker Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) Background:
Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, which created an agency that identified decaying parts of DC and was given the power of eminent domain
Berman and others you prosecuted stating that the government couldn't seize his property purely for the development of the city.
Question: Did the seizing of Berman’s property for redevelopment violate the Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment?
Answer: No. In an 8-0 decision.
The court sided with Parker stating, "If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way."
The Court believed that Congress had the ability to seize property on the basis to help the common good and to decide what values for that action are appropriate.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy:
Court made the requirements for the constitutionality of the seizing of property very lax. The government could potentially take property to improve image.
A ruling upholding public beautification had never been made before
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act and the agency continued to redevelop blighted areas. In 2005, the case of Berman was reviewed in Kelo v. City of New London and upheld in a 5-4 vote. Berman v. Parker Background: Barron was an owner of a wharf in Baltimore. The city expanded its infrastructure, sand accumulated in his wharf and prevented him from going into deep water. Barron sued the city to cover his financial loss, citing the Fifth Amendment.
Question: Does the Fifth Amendment deny states and the federal government the power to take property with just compensation?
Answer: No. In a 7-0 vote in favor of the City of Baltimore, the Court said that the limitations in the Fifth Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights were meant only for the federal government, not the states. Because of this, Chief Justice Marshall argued the the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy:
The Marshall Court gave more power to the states.
essentially said that the states could ignore the entire Bill of Rights altogether. states were given incredible leeway when it came to protecting citizen’s rights.
The Fourteenth Amendment prevented states from depriving citizens of life, liberty or property without "due process of law".
Incorporated many states into following the Bill of Rights. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) This cartoon also depicts the opinions over due process of Guantanamo Bay Prisoners. Unlike the other cartoon that emphasizes the violation of rights, this cartoon emphasizes a need for a lack of rights for the prisoners. It shows the view that there are some exceptions to due process of law when subjects like national security are involved. This cartoon depicts a Guantanamo Bay Detainee being jailed without a trial or conviction. According to the 5th and 14th Amendments, the U.S. government cannot deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. Therefore, the cartoon presents the question of whether or not jailing Guantanamo inmates without a trial violates their right to due process of law. Due Process of Law Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwMPlzPiKn8 By Julie Gagliardi, Gregory Zane, and Nick Wagner Due Process "BERMAN v. PARKER." Berman v. Parker. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"Berman v. Parker (1954)." The New York Preservation Archive Project |. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"MIRANDA v. ARIZONA." Miranda v. Arizona. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"Wolff v. McDonnell - 418 U.S. 539 (1974)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"Criminal Justice: Prisoners' Rights." Criminal Justice: Prisoners' Rights. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"LexisNexis® Litigation Essentials." LexisNexis® Litigation Essentials. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"Smith v. Phillips - 455 U.S. 209 (1982)." Justia US Supreme Court Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"RICHARDS v. JEFFERSON COUNTY." Richards v. Jefferson County. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"AMERICAN MANUFACTURERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SULLIVAN." American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. Sullivan. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"SELL v. UNITED STATES." Sell v. United States. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"APPRENDI v. NEW JERSEY." Apprendi v. New Jersey. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"BARRON v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE." Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. Oyez, n.d. Web. 05 Apr. 2013.
"Landmark Cases: Barron v. Baltimore." Www.pbs.org. Public Broadcasting Station, n.d. Web. 5 Apr. 2013. Works Cited Background:
Charles Sell was being convicted of fraud and attempted murder and was found competent to stand trial.
After an order to be hospitalized to see the scope of Sell’s capacity, Sell was forced to take psychological medicine to render Sell competent to stand trial.
Question: Does the Federal Government have the ability to forcefully give a mentally ill defendant antipsychotic drugs to make the defendant competent to stand trial.
Answer: In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government does have the right to give psychological medicine without the defendant will if it makes the defendant able to stand trial.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy:
It increases the power of the Federal Government by allowing it to manage the mental states of criminal defendants to stand trial.
Now all criminal defendants can forcefully be give antipsychotic drugs to make them more competent to stand trial. Sell v. United States (2003) Importance / Interpretation in Public Policy:
States that any deprivation that private citizen causes another citizen within the confines of state law is not the fault of the state.
Limits the definition of life, liberty, or property by stating that citizens are not entitled to receive payment for medical treatment.
This allows any deprivation that is both legal and not directly involving the state to be allowed. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company v. Sullivan (1998) cont. Background:
Ernesto Miranda arrested for kidnapping, rape and robbery.
Officers failed to read him his rights.
Interrogated without counsel and confessed to his crimes
Sentenced to 20-30 years.
Question: Does the police practice of interrogating suspects without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate their Fifth Amendment rights?
Result:
5-4 decision
Against Fifth Amendment
All suspects now must be read their rights.
Importance/ Interpretation in Public Policy: Lead to the creation of the Miranda Rights and gave all suspects the right to know their rights upon arrest. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) A set of established legal principles that seek to protect the rights of citizens.
It keeps the Government from misusing their powers and treating individuals unfairly.
The 5th Amendment states that citizens can't be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The 14th Amendment contains the Due Process Clause which states:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." What is Due Process And Where is it Found?
Full transcript