By Thursday of every week, you should have completed the activities associated with 1 project. You should blog about your experience as a comment to the blog posting of that particular project. Your blog comment can be largely experiential--tell us what it was like to do the project and what you learned. Products associated with the project and a more detailed analysis of the project will go in your portfolio (see the Portfolio blog post).
Project #12 - Case Analysis
Search and find a case using WestLaw or Nexus/Lexus on a topic of interest to you and related to psychology and law. For your comment, tell us what case you chose and why, and a short summary. For your portfolio, include a detailed analysis of the case, including what psychological or psy/law principles are operating in that case.
The case I chose is: Safford v. Redding
When I was looking up cases, this one caught my eye and I thought it was particulary interesting. It is about a 13-year old girl that is searched all the way down to her bra and underwear for ibuprofen. I have heard of drug searches in school, but this is taking it to the extreme. The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medicine, yet the girl was not even initially caught with the ibuprofen. She had been accused of giving it to another student who was actually caught with some. She was then strip-searced by both the school nurse and the vice principal's assisant, both of whom were females. They never found any ibuprofen or or other pills on her.
There are also psychological issues related to this case. I think psychologically, this experience could be damaging for Redding. She had no previous record, but yet was still strip-searched over a false accusation. Especially at her young age, this experience could create some potential traumatic memories for Redding and possibly trust issues. Another psychological factor involved in this case is obedience to authority. Redding personally made the decision to obey authority and allow them to strip-search her when she was told to remove her clothing.
The case I chose is: Alaska Packers’ Association v. Domenico
This case sparked my interest because not only does it include psychology and legal aspects but it also offers an economical view of coercion. In the case a group of fishermen agreed to work for a certain dollar amount. Once they were out at sea, the fishermen demanded to be paid more money for their services or else they would not work. The company that employed their services had no choice but to comply with their demands and pay them the higher wage. Once they went back to shore, the company did not make good with their second contract of paying them the higher price on the grounds that the contract was made under duress. The courts did NOT enforce the secondary contract because they did not want to promote people trying to force contracts through hostage-like situations.
I chose to go way back to Miranda v Arizona. The case is very well know now days for its result in having law enforcement reading a suspect his right now called "Miranda Rights." The reasons that I believe this case relates to Psychology are in the way of the police having to follow strict procedures and allow a criminal to have rights just like their victims. I believe in any case in which the constitution works in favor of the criminal, it has a negative psychological effect on those in law enforcement because it seems that their own system is against them.
A case that I found that interested me was McDaniel v. Brown. This is a case of rape, where a 9 year old girl was brutally raped while staying home alone one night. Troy Brown was the guy charged with the assault. The girl (who's name was not given) described her attacker as smelling of "alcohol and vomit." It was known that while Troy Brown was leaving a bar, he had vomitted on himself, but all other descriptions given by the girl did not match up to Brown. For instance, he was described as wearing a zip-up sweatshirt, which he was not, and also wearing a watch, which he denied. The shirt was said to have a bright green logo on the back, Brown's logo was yellow and orange. Also, the girl reported biting her attacker, and when they examined Brown four hours later, no bite marks were found. At the trial, he was found guily of her rape and attempted murder, I believe, but he is appealing this because he stands by his innocence. The girl is also known to mix up Troy with his brother Trent, although Trent has not been tried for her rape.
Here's a link to more of the details:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/08/argument-preview-mcdaniel-v-brown/
Psychological factors having to do with my case have much to do with the trauma this girl is experiencing, and also eyewitness identification. Anyone who gets raped is going to deal with a lot of problems, such as post traumatic stress disorder possibly. Also, for eyewitness identification, once a victim thinks they know who their attacker is, they will stick by their decision most likely. I think she really does think that Troy Brown did it, but because she suspected him in the first place, even if he didn't do it, she will stand by her decision.
I did the case Idaho v. Windom. There were several reasons why I choose this particular case. The first being how horrible the crime was, and it just caught my eye. The defendant was a 16 year old boy who was tried and convicted of murdering his mother to death, by stabbing her. He also beat her with a dumbbell. Another important reason why I choose this case was because of the psychological aspects involved. The defendant was determined to be a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered a psychotic break before murdering his mother. The defendant claimed his sentence was too harsh, considering his psychological condition. I found this on the Lexis/Nexis website.
BERNARDO vs CANADA
This case deals with a married couple from Canada who kidnapped, raped, and murder two teenage girls from Ontario, Canada. Bernardo's wife, Karla Homolka, tried to play the innocent victim in this case. She made a "deal" with Canadian authorities to tell her side of the story in exchange for a manslaughter charge and 12 years in prison. Unfortunately for her there was too much video evidence involved for her to be the "innocent victim" (basically saying her husband was solely responsible).
This case was one of the most despised cases in regards to the Canadian public. The Bernardo case was one of the most publicized cases in Canadian history - something that Canadians aren't necessarily accustomed to. Upon reading this I decided to do some more research using articles through our Rod Library. Two psychologists from the University of Toronto put together a study on the effects of pre-trial publicity. Their initial research found that the release of this pre-trial information (in Bernardo vs Canada) had little effect on jurors in regards to how they would vote in the trial (based on scenarios of what the trial would contain). They also noted that people who had heard of the case before the trial took place, would have seen the couple as guilty. However, once the trial began - these numbers shrank. The authors of this study concluded that pre-trial publicity has less effect than originally thought.
Link to the news article on CBC News web site:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bernardo/
Study on the effects of pre-trial publicity regarding this case:
http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.uni.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=10&hid=4&sid=77782388-ffcb-4cb8-9b3b-9e2ba8234a40%40sessionmgr11
I read up on the case Beard v. Kindler. What drew me to this case was the lengths that Kindler went to to rid himself of the death penalty that a jury decided after Kindler was convicted of beating a man and then killing him by drowning. After the death penalty conviction Kindler filed a motion challenging his sentence. Although, before the postverdict motions reached court he took off to Canada where he was then put in jail. Before being transferred back to the U.S. he escaped from jail in Canada, but finally after two years he was found and sent back to the United States after fighting the Canadian law. Once back in the U.S. he tried to reinstate his postverdict motions. It goes on to explain how Kindler fought and fought by saying that his rights were abused because the motions were dropped after he fled the country. To me Kindler seems like a man that would do anything to get out of punishment. The facts stand that he killed a guy. Personally I feel that it's difficult to comprehend that someone who is proven guilty sometimes has a chance to rebuke their conviction. The following is the link to the case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=08-992
For my case analysis I chose the case of California V. Scott Lee Peterson. I have been very interested in this case since it first came about. A short summery of this case is as follows: Scott Peterson had been married to Laci Peterson for five years prior to her murder. They were college sweethearts and everyone believed they were sole mates. At the time of her disappearance, Laci was 8 months pregnant. According to Scott, he went on a fishing trip on the morning of Dec. 24th which is the day that Laci went missing. On April 14th, the remains of Laci and Connor (her unborn son) were found on the shore of the Berkeley Marina which is within a few miles of where Scott was "fishing" on the day Laci went missing. Scott was convicted of two counts of murder and was sentenced to the death penalty.
For my case I chose Atkins V. Virginia.
On August 16, 1996, Atkins and an accomplice had spent a day smoking crack and drinking alcohol. They ended up robbing a man and shooting him several times.
This case is a fairly notable one. Atkins was sentenced to captial punishment in Virgina after being convicted of murder. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence at first, but ended up reversing the sentence. The case was then sent to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The issue here is because of evidence brought up during the original trial. Atkins' school records indicated that his IQ was 59, thus declaring him mentally retarded. His lawyer stated that executing a mentally retarded person was "cruel and unusual punishment" according to the 8th Amendment.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and ruled that the 8th Amendment prohibits execution of mentally retarded criminals.
The psychology here lies both within the criminal and the juries and judges. The criminal would need to prove that they are indeed mentally retarded, and that would most likely be by taking an IQ test (which are not always helpful). Also, judges and juries would have to use discretion to determine whether or not the criminal actually was able to comprehend what was going on and if the IQ defense was just to avoid punishment.
For my case I chose Miranda v. Arizona.
The reason I chose this case is because I am going into Criminology and possibly becoming a police officer or something in that general area in the future. I believe every one has the right to a fair trial and all that. But, it is irritating when a criminal gets off a charge because of a mishap in the reading of the rights. But it also helps innocent people too.
Ernesto Miranda was a man charged with kidnapping and rape charges. He was put through a line up and was identified and pulled out for questioning. Miranda then signed a written confession that he was guilty without being told he had the right to a lawyer. The confession was used in the trial, but was deemed to be overturned because Miranda wasn't given his rights. That's where we get the saying, "I'll read you your Miranda rights". Many people still think cops sometimes lack the whole reading of the rights part to criminals to get a quick conviction.
People vs. Abney:
I choose this case because it has to do with eyewitness accounts and how stress and weapon use in an attack can effect what the witness really saw. Especially the mistakes that could possible come from a witness and some stressors they experience. The little girl that was the victim was robbed in a subway in New York and picked out the defendant in an array of pictures and a lineup. The defendant had an alibi with witnesses to where he was at the time of the robbery.
He was convicted of first degree robbery and the Supreme Court sentenced him as a violent felony offender and he got 20 years to life for the crime.
After he got his sentence he appealed and brought in an expert explain 15 points (I will provide a link so you can read about the case) explaining how the victim could have mistaken him for someone else, some including lighting and stress of the situation and the weapon use.
He is the link to the case and what happened to try and prove his innocence.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ny/cases/app/139-140opn09.pdf
This week, I chose to read about the case Jones v United States.
On September 19, 1975 Michael Jones (who suffered from paranoid schizophrenia) stole a jacket from a Washington D.C. department store. If found guilty of petit larceny, Jones would face a maximum of a year in prison. However, Jones plead guilty by reason of insanity and on March 17, 1979, Jones was found not guilty by reason of insanity and was committed to a mental hospital. In May of 1976 after 50 days from his sentence), Jones' subsequent hearing was held and he was still considered a threat to himself and society and was recommitted into the mental hospital. By the time of his second release hearing in February of 1977, Jones had spent more than a year in prison (more than he would have if he would have plead guilty). He again asked for permission to be released or civilly committed and was yet again denied. This issue was brought to the supreme court in 1983 after more than seven years from the initial sentencing. With a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court supported the earlier decision and Jones was ordered to remain in the hospital.
I think this case is a good example of psychology in the law in the sense that Jones plead not guilty by reason of insanity since he was dealing with paranoid schizophrenia.
If you are interested about the case, here is a Wikipedia summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._United_States_%281983%29
Here is a direct link to Jones v United States: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&friend=kmarx&court=US&case=/us/463/354.html
The case I chose for this project was one that many of us are probably familiar with. I have chosen the Mark Becker case involving the shooting of the head football coach in Parkersburg last summer. This case just went through the system and Becker was found guilty even though he pleaded not guilty by means of insanity. This case involves psychology for the obvious plea of insanity, but I think the actions of Becker before he shot the Coach have to do with psychology and what lead him to the shooting. I chose this case because it is close to home and has had a negative effect on many people that I know. There are often cases that happen close to home that are simple, but this is one case that received national attention. An interesting aspect of this murder is that there was only one victim even though Becker walked into a weight room full of students. He could have gone on a killing spree, but chose to only murder the coach Ed Thomas. Previous to the murder Becker was arrested and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. I would say that this would be a very important psychological aspect that needed to be examined before making a final decision. I would speculate that Becker was released from the hospital prematurely. Because of this I would think that there could be a possibility that the hospital is in a way at fault. But, this still does not excuse Becker from the law and I agree with the fact that he was found guilty.
For this week’s project I wanted to comment on the Mark Becker trial. Having personal ties to this case I have spent a great deal of time watching and listening to the trial and its outcome. This Tuesday (March 2) a verdict was found by a jury of twelve. Mark either faced life in prison without parole or winning the insanity defense and being sent to a psychiatric institution because he has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. I watched the verdict being read live on television and was very very emotional and anxious to hear what it was. As most people know the jury found him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison without parole. Since my sister had to testify for this case I immediately called her to check how she felt about all of this. She replied that she and all the other eye witnesses were in their "counseling" group together at school and were being taken care of. Later, I was interviewed by my cousin who works for the Waverly Democrat Paper. I told my cousin that I agreed with Aaron Thomas (Ed Thomas's son) that it will be good for our town of Parkersburg to go back to being a regular small town without the media and cameras everywhere. I also said that I was relieved with the verdict was read because I feel that the families, friends, and eye witnesses might be able to feel better and start to move on.
On the other side of things I feel that watching the statements after the verdict was read related to class in many ways. First, I found it interesting when the defense attorney explained to the press why in fact she used the insanity plea. She said that Mark's past history with schizophrenia led her to begin using that as her defense and once a psychiatrist evaluated Mark and diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia that the insanity defense would be best to use.
One thing that some people may not know about is that the Ed Thomas's son's have been lobbying in Des Moines for a bill to be passed stating that hospitals need to release psychiatric patients that are facing criminal charges directly to law enforcement. I would agree that this bill should be passed and it is surprising to me that it did not occur before. Personally, it seems crazy to allow a person with mental issues that is suspected of committing a crime to go home free. This case is full of psychology and law read more about this bill at http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2010/03/02/ed-thomas-son-pleads-with-iowa-lawmakers-do-whats-right/
I chose this case because I have been yelled at numerous times by teachers for simply having Tylenol in my locker at school. I found it extremely ridiculous that the principle and staff felt the need to strip search a 13 year old girl for pain killers. I was also interested to read about how it violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
Savana Redding was taken from her middle school class room and brought to the principle’s office where she was showed a planner that contained things like knives. She admitted the planner was hers, but said she had lent it to her friend. She was then showed four prescription pills by the principle and denied them. He then said he had report that she was giving them out to kids at school. These pain killers were against the code of the school. She was then taken to the nurse and searched for drugs. When she was asked to shake out her bra and pull on her underwear (to prove she had hidden no drugs) she told her mother, who then piled a suit against the school.
Case found here : http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=08-479
The case i choose is Roper V. Simmons
I was looking through different cases and this one caught my eye. I think the reason this one caught my eye is because it deals with execution of a minor. I have done other projects before that focused on helping minors turn their life around after they have committed crime. In my opinion I don’t think a minor should be given the death penalty.
Christopher Simmons was convicted of murdering a woman when he was 17 years old. Simmons was given the death penalty in 1993. There were a number of appeals that lasted up till 2003. After the Supreme Court stated that it violated the 8th amendment to execute a person deemed mentally ill, the Missouri court decided to hear the case and stated that the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanford V. Kentucky (stated that executing minors was not unconstitutional) was not longer valid. One of the reasons why they now voted that executing minors was unconstitutional is because the opinion of the American public had changed. This case showed that it’s cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before the age of 18.
The psychology in this deals with how mature are people under the age of 18. When simmons was given the death penalty i'm sure his mental state went out the window. It would be hard to cope with that verdict at the age. The jurors would need to decide if Simmons would commit another crime and he was a danger to the community. Simmons lawyer would need to show that Simmons was just a kid with his whole life ahead of him and made a stupid mistake. Of course the law side is he committed murder, went to trail and was found guilty. The who process from when the police found out about the murder would be about the law.
The case I chose to read about was IOWA v. BRUEGGER. Jordan Bruegger was convicted of statutory rape and sentenced to 25 years in prison because of a prior sexual misconduct conviction as a juvenile. He claimed this was cruel and unusual punishment.There is a 3-part test that must be performed to prove cruel and unusual punishment under the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause" written by the U.S. Supreme Court. The state allowed him to challenge the sentence because it was deemed an exceptional case in a sea of broad-frameworked cases. The fact that Bruegger was a juvenile at the time of his prior sexual misconduct, helped him to be able to challenge his 25 year sentence as cruel and unusual. Psychologically speaking, Bruegger didn't understand why he was being punished by the law because the female he was accused of statutory rape with was a consenting individual. Unfortunately, she was under 18, and he was 5 years older than her, and the law has to deal with the facts, not feelings or emotions.
The case that I choose was WOOD v. ALLEN. I choose this case because it caught my attention. I have always wondered how people petition their rights when they are mentally handicapped in a way.
This case happened in Alabama. This case revolves around Holly Wood, who in they year 1993 broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend and shot her in the face and head while she was laying down in her bed. He was charged with capital murder during first-degree burglary and was sentences to death.
Wood petitioned his sentence of the basis that his three court-appointed attorneys did not pursue or present any evidence of his mental deficiencies. His IQ is 328, which meant that he was at the reading lower than a 3rd grade level. He also argued the fact that two of his attorneys, who were significantly experienced with trials, put the third attorney in charge of the guilt phase of the trial. This was bad on Wood's side because the third attorney had been appointed only 5 months after passing the bar. Wood tried to claim the ineffectiveness of the attorney who represented him during the guilt stage, but this was rejected due to the fact that Wood failed to establish that the performance of the counsel was not good.
Although Wood's mental deficiencies were not presented during the trial, which would have helped him not receive the death penalty, the attorneys had a very good reason. It was not in the best interest of their client. If the attorneys had presented the fact of his mental state, they would have also presented his 19 earlier arrests and previous attempts to murder another ex-girlfriend. All of this information was in the report of Dr. Kirkland, who conducted a psychological exam on Wood's in order to determine whether or not he had mental deficiencies.
When the case was over and done with the court ruled the counsel made a decision not to pursue or present evidence of Wood's mental deficiencies was not an unreasonable when taking into consideration the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.
The case I'm doing is Florida vs. Jennifer Carty
The case was about Carty who was charged with DUI manslaughter when her and her friend crashed into a ditch after driving intoxicated. Since Carty was ejected from the car the defense used the fact that they could not prove who was driving the car. (They later found out that is was Carty driving) Carty was found not guilty.
The case I am choosing to do is the Mark Becker case. I am choosing to do this because I know how long it has been sice anyone has tried and use the insanity plea. I find it very interesting and I want to learn more on how you defende the insanity plea and how you prosicute it.
The case is about Mark Becker shooting Ed. Thomas of Parkersberg this past summer. This is a sad and tragic case, but I think a lot can be learned from it if you want to persue a carrer in Psychology or law. I will be intered in finding out all of the full detail and learning about the insanity plea.
I chose to analyze the case of Colorado v. Richardson. Jacques Richardson is a serial rapist that broke into multiple women's apartments in Denver (in the same building)and raped them. Jacques Richardson broke into a 34-year-old tour guide's apartment in June 1997 and beat, tortured, and killed her. Her name was Janey Benedict. She traveled the world giving tours so she was rarely home, Richardson had to have been stalking her to have known she was even in her apartment. He hog-tied her with a noose around her neck that would tighten with even the slightest movement. Neighbors heard the commotion and called the police, but she was unconscious due to the strangulation, and died shortly after. Richardson jumped from the 2nd floor window, but was apprehended by police. The prosecution tried for the death penalty, but the jury didn't think it was premeditated so they decided life in prison without parole. The prosecution didn't try again for the death penalty because they didn't want to put Benedict's family through another painful trial. A judge sentenced him to 216 years in prison based on previous rapes and offenses without parole. Obviously Richardson suffered from some disturbing psychological issues that manifested in his increasingly violent and torturous rapes.
For my project, I looked at the trial of Susan Smith. Susan Smith was convicted of the murder of her two young sons. She is currently serving a life sentence in prison.
At first, Smith claimed that her car was hijacked by an African American man. People were on the lookout for her car everywhere. Smith appeared all over the media, pleading for her children. She then admitted that she had let her car drive into a lake, drowning her children. The nation was outraged at this woman whom they had pitied so much.
There were many different factors in this case. Smith said that she had killed her children so that she might begin a relationship with an older, wealthier man who had no interest in children. People were also upset because Smith had brought race into the picture by falsely identifying a black man as the kidnapper of her children.
Not surprisingly, Smith claimed mental health issues. This was backed up by the fact that she had suffered through sexual assault as a teenager and her father had committed suicide when Smith was still a young child. She clearly did not have a stable upbringing.
This case was really interesting to read about in a very sad way. This woman clearly had mental problems, and it's too bad these issues were not identified before her innocent children had to suffer.
This is a great article about the trial:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010413220920/http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/year_in_review/us/smith.html
The case I choose involves Richard loeb and Nathaniel Leopold. It is from 1924 but is noted by many as a very famous case. The two boys attenede michigan university and were convinced they could create the perfect murder. Loeb was romantially interested in leopold but it seems as though it was part of the problem leading up to the random murdering of a 14 year old boy. The reason the case mainly became so famous is that the boys attourney convinced the jurrors in a 12 hour summnation that they could not be senteced to death since it wasn't there fault but rather a philophy classes fault. The two did not recieve the dealth penalty.The case had over 100 witnesses too. There are a lot of psychological elements involved in this trial.
I chose the case Michelle Monier-Kilgore vs. Steven Flores. I chose this because I like to believe that not all cases involving psychology require heinous acts of rape or murder. The psychology presented in this case is pseudo-psychology, and of course the psychology of the innocent and the guilty. The premise is that Flores and friends brainwashed a woman named Claudette Monier to the extent that she squandered her investments and willed her possessions to them. She died in a bicycle accident and her family is suing the Flores etc. defendants.
The case I chose is Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher. It is about a disturbance in a neighborhood in Michigan where police were called to control a fight that was getting out of hand. When they arrived, the police noticed a smashed truck in the front yard, broken glass and blood everywhere, and broken windows in the house. They could hear yelling from inside the house as well. When they approached the house, they noticed a man, Fisher, was bleeding. They asked him if he needed medical help, but Fisher ignored them. As a result, one police officer started to go into the house where he was met by Fisher holding a long gun pointed at the officer. Fisher is fighting for his right to the Fourth Amendment, however the police are saying that they had good reasons to go into the house, such as Fisher being in need of medical help, and the need to stop the fighting before it really got out of hand. I chose this case because I'm sure domestic confrontations go on all the time, and I fell that they police had a right to go into the house and try and stop Fisher from hurting himself more as well as anyone else that was around.
The Case analysis that I decided to do was over Stanford v. Kentucky. This case involved Stanford and another man who robbed a store near his home. They stole cigarettes, two gallons of few and very little cash. However, in order to cover up the robbery the boys took the girl who was the cashier and rapped her repeatedly then Stanford shot her in the face and then in the back of the head. During the discussion Stanford states:
I had to shoot her, [she] lived next door to me and she would recognize me. . . . I guess we could have tied her up or something or beat [her up] . . . and tell her if she tells, we would kill her. . . . Then after he said that he started laughing
From this description one might be able to guess the level of psychological stability the psychologists judged him and whether he was able to stand trial. He was able to stand trial however they did note that he was not at the level of maturity one would assume for a 17 years old based on that statement. In the state of Kentucky in order to be tried as an adult one must meet one of the following criteria’s: commit a class A felony, a capital crime, or be over 16 and charged with a felony. As one might guess Stanford fit this category with his murder charge he was tired as an adult. One of the reasons I choose this case was because of the outcome. The death penalty was seek in this case in Kentucky and some of the other projects that I did for this class was based on the death penalty, wrongfully convicted (I’m not say this guy was wrongfully convicted-yet it ties in with the death penalty) and the death penalty for minors. Therefore, this case played an important aspect in my portfolio when I compare it with the other cases and amendments regarding death penalty of a minor.
This link is not to the case but to a website that has information about Kevin Stanford and his appeals death row sentence if anyone is interested.
http://www.ccadp.org/kevinstanford.htm
The case I chose to do is US v. Stevens. This is a case about animal cruelty. Stevens was charged with selling dog fighting tapes. Stevens claimed that it was unlawful because it conflicted with the First Amendment.
I chose this case because I find it interesting how someone can think that selling a tape over something that is illegal is right. And by the US getting involved it violated the First Amendment. Does Stevens not realize that by what he's doing it's violating a lot of laws? Not to mention harming innocent animals.
The case I chose was Iowa v Hodges.
This case is about a man who has had a long-standing history of sexual abuse, voyeurism, and frotteurism. He was in a mental health hospital several times but still continued to have many problems. Throughout these years, he was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. In 2003, the state of Iowa filed a petition to classify Hodges as a sexually violent predator and have him civilly committed. The jury sided with the state of Iowa and Hodges was to be civilly committed. Hodges appealed this but was denied.
The reason I chose this case is because I'm interested in personality disorders and Hodges had antisocial personality disorder. I also found it pretty disturbing how many times he got in trouble for either peeking at women or touching them without consent. It definitely proves that a disorder is present.
I chose Gideon v Wainwright for this project. It's been a while since I finished it but basically the case involved Gideon being charged with breaking and entering, and being forced to represent himself since at the time the law was that only people who were illiterate or incompetent were awarded free legal counsel.
He eventually hand wrote a note to the Supreme Court that he felt this ruling was in violation of his 6th amendment rights to a fair trial and due process. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in his favor. Of particular interest to me was the fact that this case made it clear that being charged with a crime alone was enough to require that you be provided with a lawyer. It is a necessity, not a luxury to have a lawyer represent you.
For my portfolio I included several other links to articles and court cases which discuss court appointed legal counsel and due process issues. Since I tend to favor the underdog, vehemently oppose the death penalty, and am in favor of massive reform of our justice system issues such as these are very interesting to me.
I was searching for cases on FindLaw, and came across McDaniel vs. Brown. It is about a 9 year old little girl who they call Jane Doe, that was raped brutally. She lived in a trailer park where neighbors were acquainted with her and her family. Her mother left her home alone one night while she went out to the bar. The accused person is Troy Brown. In the case there are many details that say yes, he raped her, and there are also some details that do not add up as they should, that says, no Troy did not do this. In my portfolio i will give complete detail on the case as well as the websites i used!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=08-559
Here is the main website that i am using
Through LexisNexis, I came across Perez vs. City of Austin, Texas. File I found didn't seem to be the whole case but to refute the expert testimony of the defendants witness. In the case as a whole, the issue was that Perez was not admitted to become a full fledged cop after his probation period due to his religious beliefs and that Perez was psychologically unfit for duty. In this particular document, Perez wanted certain sentences and paragraphs stricken from the record.
This document caught my attention due to the fact it wasn't a whole case, but a case within a case. Based on what I read on this document, it looks like Perez did not win his case. He did, however, throw out the majority of the defendant's expert witnesses testimony.
For the next case I pursued, I chose Haimdas vs. Haimdas. This alone sparked my curiosity, but I had a good feeling it would be some sort of spousal dispute, divorce, or child custody. In this case, it was child custody. In this case though, there were many differences than we are used to seeing in a case file. Instead of plaintiff vs. defendant, it was marked as Petitioner vs. Respondent. Considering the mother is a UK citizen and the father is US, this somehow complicated matters. The Hague Convention, Article 13, allows children to decide which parent they wish to stay with provided the children can demonstrate maturity and sufficient age to do so. This was what the Respondent, the father, was hoping for. The Petitioner, the mother, was claiming they aren't old enough to make an informed opinion. On both the Petitioner and the Respondent’s part, they hired an "expert" to testify for their side. On the mothers side, she hired a forensic psychologist while the father hired a marriage and family therapist. Long story short, although petitioner's psychologist was a specialist in forensics, they won due to the fact the therapist wasn't a licensed psychologist at all. This decision was made in limine, or by the judge's rule. The parents or children can try again in the future, but the Respondent must use a different expert witness.
This case was decided February 22nd of this year. I was hoping to discover why, when my parents divorced when I was 14, that I was able to choose who to stay with, and I somewhat got my answer. It was very interesting that the case began by describing the Hague Convention and stating it is to remediate international child abduction as well... Those seem very serious words when "Child custody" could have worked much better.