Mackenzie, Isaac, Leon, Tristen. Argued: October 10, 1932 Decided: November 7, 1932 POWELL V ALABAMA (1932)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Bush V. Gore Chene Castrodale Britton Borlace Hour 2 AP Govt.
Advertisements

U.S. v. Nixon Bush v. Gore Gideon vs. Wainwright
Chapter 21 Section 2 The Watergate Scandal
Landmark Supreme Court case: Gideon V. Wainwright
U.S. Vs. Nixon Michael and Ryan Fischer. Watergate Scandal Major political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s as a result of the.
The Judicial Branch. Court Systems & Jurisdictions.
Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal Chapter 31.
The U.S. vs Nixon Blaise Murfitt What is the U.S. vs Nixon? The U.S. vs Nixon was a landmark Supreme Court case in which President Richard M. Nixon was.
Gideon vs. Wainwright (1963)
U.S Supreme Court Law Cases. Table of Contents Marbury v. Madison Overview3 Arguments4 Verdict5 Miranda v. Phoenix Overview6 Arguments 7 Verdict8 United.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
THURSDAY, JANUARY 22 ND ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION(S) IN YOUR WRITING FOLDER/SPIRAL: 2. Which category list represents military law? SS.7.C.3.10 A.
Supreme Court Cases. U. S. v. Nixon Background: Background: Watergate Hotel; burglars break into Democratic Party headquarters. White House staff are.
LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES
Analyze this Lady Justice statue for symbolic things. What do you see? Design your own statue that you think represents justice. Bell Ringer.
You’re not the boss of me! Medellin v. Texas. The treaty ► Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, adopted in 1963 and now joined by 171 nations, including.
Chapter 14: The Presidency in Action Section 2. Copyright Pearson EducationSlide 2 Chapter 14, Section 2 Objectives 1.Identify the sources of the President’s.
Chapter 14: Executive Powers Section 2
The Scottsboro Case The Criminal Justice Process: An Overview.
 The US court system is an adversarial system.  This means that the trial is a contest between two sides.  The judge makes rulings on the law and manages.
A CASE STUDY United States v. Nixon. Separation of Powers The division of the powers of government among the different branches Separation of powers is.
Cruel or unjust government.. To bring a formal charge of wrongdoing against the President or another federal official.
Welcome to Unit Two Introduction To Constitutional Law Bush v. Gore And other Constitutional Applications.
JUVENILE LAW. History of Juvenile Law  Originally, juvenile offenders were treated the same as adult criminals  Beginning in 1899, states began forming.
Amendment Six: News Article And Explanation Paul Collopy.
Juvenile Justice. Why do we have a criminal justice system? What are the goals of the system? What are the things it is supposed to accomplish?
In re Gault The Supreme Court Establishes Rules for Juveniles.
Due Process of the Law Requires the state and the federal government in matters of life, liberty, or property of individuals to be reasonable, fair, and.
United States v. Nixon Background Watergate Burglary June 17, 1972 Washington Post Investigation CREEP Special Prosecutor ▫Archibald Cox Senate.
Unit 9. The Watergate Scandal Chapter 28 Section 2.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Marbury v. Madison Before President John Adams was leaving the Presidency he appointed many new federal judges – like John.
United States vs. Nixon. What happen? The Watergate scandal was constantly creeping outwards in the Nixon administration, seeming to not have any end,
Supreme Court Landmark Cases. Marbury v. Madison President John Adams appointed John Marshall as the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and William.
United States v. Nixon (1974) Ciera Dalton Block 2 10/26/13.
Landmark Court Cases Court Cases that set very important precedents.
US V. Nixon By Paul Ziarko. Background The Watergate scandal occurred in 1972, during which a group of men broke into the democratic headquarters in the.
Argued July 8, decided July 24, 1974 By Melissa Davenport & Maria Terrero Maria Terrero.
United States v. Nixon In re Gault Bush v. Gore Marbury v. Madison
United States Vs. Nixon 1974 By: Michelle Parungao and Elijah Crawford.
The Court System Chapter 5. Courts  Trial Courts- two parties Plaintiff- in civil trial is the person bringing the legal action Prosecutor- in criminal.
 March 1931 nine black youth got into a fight on a train with some white boys.  They were asked to leave the train.  After that two white girls accused.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).
Article III: The Judicial Branch Chapters: 11,12
Click to edit Master subtitle style 9/30/2016 Famous Court Cases #1.
The Supreme Court Intro The Court of Last Resort.
Supreme Court Landmark Cases.
Court Cases that set very important precedents.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Civics EoCA Review Landmark Cases
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
3.12 landmark supreme court cases
Chapter 14: Executive Powers Section 2
THE WATERGATE SCANDAL JULY
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
(2000) By Trey and William.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES
THE WATERGATE SCANDAL JULY
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Objective Describe the…
Chapter 14: The Presidency in Action Section 2
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
United States v. Nixon The Rule of Law
Gideon v Wainright 6th and 14th Amendments.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases
1970s Pt 1- Nixon, Watergate, and Ford
Juvenile Law.
U.S. Legal History and Constitution
Gideon v. Cochran “Legal Brief”
Gideon v. Wainwright The Right to Legal Counsel
Presentation transcript:

Mackenzie, Isaac, Leon, Tristen

Argued: October 10, 1932 Decided: November 7, 1932 POWELL V ALABAMA (1932)

Nine "young, ignorant, and illiterate” black youths later known as the Scottsboro Boys were accused of raping two young women They had gotten into a fight on a train with other white boys and after were asked to leave the train. Following the incident two white girls accused them of raping them; however one of the girls later retracted her claim. Alabama officials sprinted through the legal proceedings. A total of three trials took place in one day and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law requited the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them in trial. POWELL V ALABAMA (1932) BACKGROUND

Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? POWELL V ALABAMA (1932)

What do you think and why? POWELL V ALABAMA(1932)

7-2 Decision The trial court denied defendants due process by failing to provide reasonable opportunity to secure counsel in their defense DECISION

Argued: December 6, 1966 Decided May 15, 1967 IN RE GAULT (1967)

Gerald Gault was a 15 year old male who prank called a neighbor; Gault claimed it was his friend Robert Lewis who had actually done the call. The arresting officer did not leave a notice for Gault’s family and they found out about his arrest from the family of Ronald Lewis. A hearing was held on June 9 th 1964 but Cook never showed for the trial so the case relied solely on her word. Gault was not given a lawyer, but the judge sentenced him to 7 years at the State Institutional School IN RE GAULT (1967) BACKGROUND

Were the procedures used to commit Gault Constitutionally legitimate under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? IN RE GAULT (1967)

What do you think and why? IN RE GAULT (1967)

8-1 Decision for Gault The proceedings of the juvenile court failed to comply with the Constitution. The Court held that the proceedings for juveniles had to comply with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. DECISION

Argued: July 8, 1974 Decided: July 24, 1964 US V NIXON (1974)

President Richard Nixon was running for reelection against Senator George McGovern Five months before the election, an alert security guard found burglars in Watergate, the Democratic Party headquarters. Reporters that were following the story connected the burglars to high-ranking officials in the White House. Nixon denied any connection to the break-in. In an independent Congressional investigation it revealed that there was audiotapes of the President discussing the break-in with it’s organizers. Nixon refused to hand over the tapes, claiming “executive privilege. ” US V NIXON (1974) BACKGROUND

Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentially power, entirely immune from judicial review ? US V NIXON (1974)

What do you think and why? US V NIXON (1974)

Unanimous Decision in favor of US. The Court held neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute unqualified, presidential privilege. The president is not above the law and cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence in a criminal trial. DECISION

Argued: December 11, 2000 Decided: December 12, 2000 BUSH V GORE (2000)

2000 presidential election was so close that it would be decided from Florida’s voting results. The Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from the Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all ballots which did not indicate a vote for President because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. BUSH V GORE (2000) BACKGROUND

Gov. George Bush and Richard Cheney filed a request for review in the US Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. The US Supreme Court granted a review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later. BUSH V GORE (2000) BACKGROUND CONT.

Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution? BUSH V GORE (2000)

The Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Bush noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devaluated by “later artery and disparate treatment”. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. DECISION