by michael cleary period 8 10 3 13 college business law mr como n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
College Business Law PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
College Business Law

College Business Law

113 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

College Business Law

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. By Michael Cleary Period 8 10/3/13 College Business Law Mr. Como College Business Law

  2. In 1961, there was a burglary in Panama City and Clarence Gideon happened to be nearby and was accused. Not having enough money for a lawyer, Clarence requested one was provided for him due to being entitled by the 6th Amendment The court denied his request, and he was forced to represent himself. He did a terrible job and was sentenced to five years in prison. He sent an appeal to the United States Supreme Court after being denied at the Florida Supreme Court. Gideon v Wainwright

  3. The court denied his request for an lawyer during the case because “the state did not have to pay a poor person's legal defense unless he was charged with a capital crime or "special circumstances" existed.” Defenses Argument

  4. The court overturned the law previously created by the Betts case to rule in Gideon's favor. The court decided it was only fair for a lot of people faced the same problem. The ruled in favor of Gideon and backed the ruling by the 6th Amendment Court's Decision

  5. Police broke into Dollree Mapp's home searching for a suspected bomber. The police searched her house illegally without a warrant and found “obscene” picture, photos and books in a trunk in her basement. Even though it did not link her to the bomber she was arrested anyway. (Most likely for not cooperating.) Mapp v Ohio

  6. The Court ruled that because the evidence was peacefully seized out of an inanimate object, in this case the trunk, it was legal. If the evidence was forcibly seized from off someone's person, then it would have been illegal. Defenses Argument

  7. The court did not rule in Mapp's favor, and instead allowed the Ohio court to make the decision of how Mapp should be prosecuted. The reason was because of the court ruling of Wolf v Colorado made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent the admission of evidence claimed by an illegal search and seizure. Court's Decision

  8. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under Connecticut law for giving information and medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. The law criminalized the provision of counseling and other medical treatment to married persons for the purpose of preventing conception. Griswold v Connecticut

  9. First off, the defense saw Griswold and her colleague as criminals for breaking a state statute Also it does not say in the constitution that someone has the right to privacy. Defenses Argument

  10. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 in favor of Griswold. The decision was backed by the right to due process. The First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments gave the right to privacy in marital relations. Because the Connecticut law conflicted with the constitution is was seen as null and void. Court's Decision

  11. Ernesto Miranda was a lower-class Mexican immigrant who was arrested after a crime victim singled him out in a police lineup. The charge was rape and kidnapping, and Miranda was interrogated for 2 hours and left in police custody. The officers never informed Miranda of his 5th Amendment or 6th Amendment. Miranda v Arizona

  12. When the case was brought to Arizona Supreme Court, the police admitted to not telling Miranda his rights. They argued though that Miranda had been arrested in the past and must have been aware of his rights. Defenses Argument

  13. In a vote 5 to 4 in Miranda's favor, the Court ruled that police must tell convicts of their rights. They must warn them that they have the right to remain silent and a right to an attorney during an interrogation. The decision was backed by the law of self-incrimination Court's Decision