Introduction
The cases below were presented in the court of law and their decisions were a foundation on which other similar cases could be based on. Law in its course is a very tough discipline more so for the individuals who have not trained well in that field. All the cases presented below addressed different types of crimes. Judges give verdict on cases by interpreting the law basing on judgements of previous cases similar to the one at hand. Two of the cases below address disorderly conduct, one entails threat communication and the other addresses the act of escaping from federal custody.
Facts: Peaceful protestation was held by 187 African-Americans outside the government offices of South Carolina, Columbia. These demonstrators were advocating for the end of discrimination and segregation of the blacks. They also wanted the government to reinstate the rights which were entitled to the citizen’s earlier.
Issues: The jury convicted the demonstrators with the charge of breaching peace but they appealed the conviction basing on the 14th Amendment of due process. They thought that the court was not armed with the evidence of breach of peace simply because they believed that their protestations were peaceful
Decisions: Convictions were enacted by the original trial to the ones who engaged in the Edwards case. There were 5 days sentencing to jails or equivalent fine of $10 or 30 days in jail or a fine of $100 (Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 US 229 – Supreme Court 1963, 2011). However, Mr. Justice Stewart acted as the judge to appeal for the case and inverted such imposed convictions leading to the emergency of dissenting opinions presented by Mr. Justice Clark (Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 US 229 – Supreme Court 1963, 2011).
Reasoning: The reason behind the conviction in this case applied the original trial that was used in the South Carolina law on breach of peace. Justice Stewart reviewed 17 previous cases in order to come up with the final decision. He did not believe that the evidence from the prosecution warranted the conviction.
Dissenting opinions: Was written by Justice Clark that indicated how he would uphold the basis of the convictions. He also affirmed that the City Manager was avoiding riots and hence arrested the protesters. Justice Clark believed that the protester’s signage was plenty to induce wrath in citizens as soon as the demonstration became more.
Facts: It is a case involving the arrest and conviction of thirty two students from A & M University in Tallahassee, Florida. They were convicted of trespassing with a mischievous and malevolent intentions. Their protests were staged outside the jail.
Issues: The Fourteenth Amendment contains the notes of the issues that were raised in this case. The issues were in due process. They are also noted in the assembly, freedom of speech and right to petition (Adderley v. Florida, 385 US 39 – Supreme Court 1966, 2011).
Decisions: Adderley and the rest were found guilty by the court of the charges. The charges were based on the evidence offered by the law administration and interpretation of the 1965 Florida statute § 821.18. Justice Black upheld the convictions in the appeal.
Reasoning: In this petition Adderley complained that he had the right to protest on public land by referencing Edwards v. South Carolina. However, the property on which they protested was not public and this made the basis of the arrest elusive.
There is no similarity between the Florida trespass law and the breach of peace law and hence the link to this case was subtle. The case by Edwards’s encompassed open-to-public property whereas that of Adderley case did not involve property that was public.
Dissenting opinions: Dissenting opinion was presented by Justices Douglas, Fortes and Chief Justice Brennan. It signposted that the jail grounds were the students demonstrated was a common ground and hence the basis of the convictions was unjust.
Facts: This case involved a civilian John Cain who presented a case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that regarded the members’ actions within the Republic of Texas (ROT). The civilian provided evidence of terrorism behavior like the preparation of threatening the government offices through emails and personal harm threats using a biological agent. The charges were directed to Johnie Wise, Oliver Dean Emigh and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr.
Issues: Sending intimidating messages to the government officials via emails. The FBI were led to the plan formulated by Johnie Wise by Cain who informed Agent Sharkey of Johnie Wise’s decisions concerning the intimidating emails to officials in the government. When Cain informd Agent Sharkey about Wise’s intentions to hurt someone, he availed himself to follow up the case.
Decisions: Grebe and Wise were found guilty by the jury of the original trial on counts five and six (Counts 2 through 8) and Emigh was not guilty on all counts. Johnie Wise based on insufficiency of evidence in the appeal leading to the conviction and inappropriateness of the instructions that the jury.
The prosecutor finally gave the argument was for misconduct.
Reasoning: Johnie Wise and Jack Grebe were found guilty of conspiracy by the court from their crimes of committing crimes against US. The appeal agreed on the charge that was proved by the evidence provided.
Dissenting opinions: No dissenting opinion presented in this particular case.
Facts: Bailey, Cooley, Cogdell and Walker were the appellants in this case and requested a trial based escaping federal custody. It was a tricky case. Bailey, Cooley, Cogdell and Walker escaped custody through a loose window they had noticed in the custody and the jury convicted them of the guilty of the trial to escape federal custody.
Issues: Bailey, Cooley, Cogdell and Walker did not agree with the convictions as there was no prove of the intention behind the escape from the prosecutor side and also that they were not granted the chance to testify against the custody conditions.
Decisions: The conviction was reversed by the court on appeal due to a divided vote (United States v. Bailey, 444 US 394 – Supreme Court 1980, 2011).
Reasoning: The jury did not receive appropriate instruction according to the court and the evidence regarding the duress of the appellants was insufficient.
Dissenting Opinion: Justice Stevens presented concurring dissenting opinion.
Disorderly conduct can be defined as the behavior that is intended to disrupt the peace and order in the society (disorderly conduct, 2011). The protesters in the Adderley v. Florida case did their demonstrations on open-to-public protested grounds and in the case of Edwards v. South Carolina, the protesters had the right to protest on government grounds open to the public (Adderley v. Florida, 385 US 39 – Supreme Court 1966, 2011). Disorderly conduct can also be defined as a behavior that interrupts the capability of a society or people that live in that society to live without being bothered. Disorderly is anything that disturbs the quiet environment of an individual such as loud noise or music.
When the police searched the dormitories and the homes of the students, they did not come up with any evidence of any materials that could be used to make bombs.
Conviction can be based on the threatening emails for prosecution to take its course. However, the evidence supporting the threats in the email is unnecessary. Sending emails with threat tags to government officials was a crime case that can lead to conviction (U.S. Code, 2011).
Intoxication was the reason behind the escaping of the Inmate Grady. The success of the prosecution to convict Grady will depend on whether it will prove that the Inmate escaped to avoid confinement. Enough evidence is necessary. Grady wandered off after drinking homemade moonshine and hence there were no intentions to escape confinement (United States v. Bailey, 444 US 394 – Supreme Court 1980, 2011). However, Inmate Grady will have to face the charges of the possession of contraband in the prison.
References
Adderley v. Florida, 385 US 39 – Supreme Court 1966. (2011). Retrieved July 26, 2011, from Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10641909224290088946&q=%C2%A7+%09%09%09%C2%A7+Adderley+v.+Florida,+385+U.S.+39+%281966%29+%281963%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&as_vis=1
CJUS290 1103A-02 Criminal Law Phase 4 Individual Project Assignment. (2011). Retrieved 2011, from Colorado Technical University: www.ctuonline.edu.
Disorderly conduct. (2011). Retrieved August 1, 2011, from The Free Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disorderly+conduct.
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 US 229 – Supreme Court 1963. (2011). Retrieved July 26, 2011, from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=527941814843853341&q=%C2%A7+Edwards+v.+South+Carolina,+372+U.S.+229+%281963%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&as_vis=1
U.S. Code. (2011). Retrieved August 1, 2011, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002332—a000-.html
United States v. Bailey, 444 US 394 – Supreme Court 1980. (2011). Retrieved July 26, 2011, from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1379329779334955251&q=U.S.+v.+Bailey,+444+U.S.+394+%281980%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47&as_vis=1
US v. Wise, 221 F. 3d 140 – Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2000. (2011). Retrieved July 26, 2011, from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1454931695494445165&q=%09%09%09%C2%A7+U.S.+v.+Wise,+221+F.3d+140+%285th+Cir.+2000%29&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47
U.S. Law. (n.d.). Retrieved August 1, 2011, from Justia.com: http://law.justia.com/codes/us/title18/18usc1791.html.
