You are on page 1of 14

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME

Phase 5 Individual Project Colorado Technical University Online CJUS290-1102B-02: Criminal Law Nghiem Doan, Esquire Christopher B. Lane Portions of these assignments were recently submitted on March 20, 2011, the instructor of the class was Nakia Clay, the course code: CJUS290-1101B-02, the instructor is Nghiem Doan, Esquire, the course code is CJUS290-1102B-02: Criminal Law, recently submitted on June 14, 2011.

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME

Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)

Title: Edwards v. South Carolina No. 86

Facts: The facts in this case; there were some African-American kids that were desegregated, because of the beliefs in their religion. In this case, African-American high school kids, and college students were singing religious songs. The kids were told by authorities to stop what they were doing within 15 minutes, or be arrested, and taken into custody. There was no evidence to prove the kids did not cause any trouble (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963).

Issues: There was no substantial argument that the kids were doing anything that would be considered as unlawful. The kids met at a church. The kids were exercising their right to their religion, by singing religious songs. There appears to be desegregation in this case against the kids, by the local law enforcement, because of their race. Assumingly, this case drew a lot of attention from the higher courts, for a hearing to be scheduled.

Decisions: The decision of the higher courts to rule in the favor of the kids was considered in my opinion, a very worthy decision. Abraham Lincoln ended slavery to anyone that was affected. Abraham Lincoln mentioned in the Gettysburg Address, that all men are created equal. When Abraham Lincoln wrote this, he was referring to men and women are created equal (Lincoln,

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME 1863). There was a lot discriminatory action initiated against the kids (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963). There was no evidence to support that the African-American culture violated any laws (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963).

Reasoning: The fourteenth Amendment does not condone any state to make or impose a criminal and peaceful expression of unpopular views (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963). The US Supreme convey that these malicious assaults on the Negro culture was not justifiable by saying; it may strike some people as being prejudice and preconceptions, and have a more profound unsettling effects of the idea, as it may be press for acceptance of an idea (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963).

Dissenting opinions: Even though, the public did not think it was unlawful for the local law enforcement to arrest the Negro culture for their actions of marching, and singing religious songs was not of any concerns as being a threat; the actions of the local enforcement to make an arrest, solely on the fact, these individuals were committing of a crime is not present; and charging them with a crime is unconstitutional (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963). The US Supreme Court went on to say; a conviction resting on any of these grounds will not stand (Edwards v. South Carolina, 1963).

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)

Title: Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) No. 19

Facts: The defendants in this case were protesting on county property in front of a jail, and were asked to leave or be charged with trespassing. Some of the protestors were in fear of being arrested, and left the scene. However, the other protestors stayed and were in fact, arrested for trespassing, according to Florida statutes (Adderly v. Florida, 1966). The protestors were convicted by a jury for trespassing on government property (Adderly v. Florida, 1966).

Issues: There could be issues of them practicing their religion, similar to the Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229. The difference between that case and this case is the defendants were on county property; if they were on state capital; then the protest would be legitimate, but they were asked to leave, and they refused to do so (Adderly v. Florida, 1966). The accused argued their rights as a minority were violated, and that was not the case. The convicted broke the trespassing law in the state of Florida; therefore, their rights were not violated.

Decisions: The US Supreme Court stood firmly on their decision of not overturning the lower courts verdict. The US Supreme Court will let the lower courts verdict stand as being valid.

Reasoning: The highest court in the land, concluded, to the fact the protestors were asked to leave, and refused to leave, and they were arrested. The reasons behind this case stands for the laws in this case were factual; and that the protestors would have been in a place to protest; to

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME make the protest legitimate; then overturning verdict from the lower courts as being unconstitutional; in fact it was constitutional.

Dissenting opinions: The jury was instructed to look at the elements of the crime in this case; the jury concluded that the protestors did violate the law.

U.S. v. Wise, 221 F. 3d 140 (5th Cir. 2000)

Title: United States of American v. Johnnie Wise and Jack Abbot Grebe, JR. No. 99-40247

Facts: In March of 1998, the defendant in the case was a computer consultant, and caught up with John Roberts. The defendant, Wise told Roberts, he was a member of Republic of Texas (United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., 2000). Wise and Grebe would send threatening messages to the agencies and their employees, if in fact, the demands of the Republic of Texas was not met (United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., 2000). The masterminds, Wise and Grebe wanted information regarding the email addresses of the government agencies, so they can send their threatening email messages (United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., 2000). Wise mentioned he was going to use such things as botulism, rabies, and anthrax, against the government agencies (United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., 2000).

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME

Issues: The issues in this case, the authorities will need more than just Cains word, to seek a conviction against Wise, and Grebe. With a tape recording of Wise saying he was going to send emails of the threat of sending stuff like botulism, rabies, and anthrax to the government emails, would be substantial in court.

Decisions: On August 4, 1998, the following people were charged with the indictment: Wise, Grebe, and Emigh, were charged with conspiracy to attempt to use weapons of mass destruction, which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2332 a (a)(2) and (c) (2) (C) (Count 1), and there were in violation with another code, 18 U.S.C. 2 (Counts 2-8) (United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., 2000). On the other hand, Emigh was acquitted from all of the charges, and the other two defendants, Wise Grebe were sentence to a 292-month prison sentence, with a 5 year supervised release, along with an aggregate $200 special assessment (United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., 2000).

Reasoning: The was no reasoning in this case, because the accused, Wise and Grebe, knowingly, knew the intentions behind the charge; to send threats to a government email address is in violation of the US Penal Code, and the facts in this case stands.

Dissenting Opinions: Whether the defendants want to cry out that their constitutional rights were unjustified. Making threats of the nature to cause harm is not tolerated. No courts will

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME overturn a conviction of this magnitude. The harm that this could cause a human being is very serious, and it should be taken as much.

United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980)

Title: United States v. Bailey, No. 78-990

Facts: The facts of this case. An inmate escapes federal custody in a correctional environment. The defendant was on the loose up to 3.5 months, before he was apprehended (United States v. Bailey, 1980)

Issues: The defendant claimed he was under death threats at the federal prison. The defendant, Bailey could not remember the FBI agent when he question during his trial for escaping custody. The issues in this case, if the defendant in this case should know if in fact, he spoke to an FBI agent; generally an FBI agent will let you know that they are an FBI agent (United States v. Bailey, 1980).

Decisions: The US Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had no right to escape from federal custody in a correctional environment; if the defendant felt his life was in danger; he should have contacted the Warden of the Federal Prison, or a Correctional Officer; if the defendant felt his life was in danger (United States v. Bailey, 1980). The US Supreme Court Justices concluded to Bailey; that he should do as we say, instead of doing what he did (United States v. Bailey, 1980).

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME

Reasoning: The defendant, Bailey knowingly escaped from federal prison, which is a violation of Federal Penal Code 18 U.S.C. 751. Escaping federal custody; without serving his sentence is a crime in itself (United States v. Bailey, 1980). If you run from the law; the defendant will got caught eventually, and the defendant will go back into custody.

Dissenting Opinions: Justice Rehnquist, gave his opinion about this case, and furthermore, concluded that the verdict of the District Courts will stand against Bailey for escaping federal custody (United States v. Bailey, 1980).

The next thing, I would like to talk about is the definition of disorderly conduct. The term disorderly conduct refers too: it is considered as a minor criminal offense that may be charged with a numerous offenses, such as: public intoxication, loitering, disturbing the peace would also be considered with this definition, and loud threats or parties (US Legal, 2011). The offense defined, can also include: A person(s) is guilty of disorderly conduct if, the alleged to cause public inconvenience, and/or annoyance or alarm, and/or recklessly creating a risk thereof; if the alleged engages in fighting or decides to threaten, and/or in violent or tumultuous behavior, etc., (US Legal, 2011).

In the case with Jane; she has some mental impairments, but Jack was part of a credit scam that happens to a lot of people in society. Credit card scam happens to so many, and we are

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME not aware, which this can also be called identity theft in a sense, because the owner of the condominium complex was not around. After reading this scenario; it seems Jane had some


mental health issues, and I firmly believe that she acted out of self-defense, because an informant of Jack came out to kill her, because was afraid she would turn him in for embezzling money from Mrs. Wealthy. If I was an attorney practicing law; I would represent Jane, for the simple fact, she was working for the scam artist, which she did not know at that time; what his plans were. I firmly believe if Jane knew Jack was doing; she would not have given him the keys to Mrs. Wealthys condominium complex. Mrs. Wealthy was a victim of a huge, who she did not realize; there were two victims in this case and they were Jane, and Mrs. Wealthy. Jack would be charged with a numerous amounts of crimes. The first charge would be credit card scam to Mrs. Wealthy. Then he would be charge with the death of his informant. Jack would not be charged with breaking and entering; because he gained access to the complex from Jane. Then, I would get a psychological evaluation on Jane, so the other attorney cannot try to charge Jane with any unlawful crimes. I will begin by describing embezzlement. The term embezzlement means, to take money from someone in somebodys own use in the act of the violation of trust (Fairlex, 2011). The next thing, I would like to give you an idea on what credit card scam. With the economy the way it is credit card scam is on the rise. Some people are trying to get money off of somebody. According to the author, Scam busters talks about some tips to make yourself on the guard about credit card scams. The first thing you need to go is to keep an eye out on when you use your credit card (Internet Scam busters, N/A). The defense for Jack; there would not be any defense if the prosecution can show if in fact, Jack, took some money from Mrs. Wealthys credit card. According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Coercion; there are two different faces of coercion. One of the faces is it will pick out technique agents called coercers

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME


that can be used to get other agents, perhaps, to do, and/or not to do something (Anderson, 2006). The other face would be to pick out a kind of reason for why many agents using coercion to refrain from doing anything/something (Anderson, 2006). Janes defense would be that she is has a mental impairment, which limits her in her thinking process. Jane acted out of self-defense, because the informant of Jack was trying to kill her, so she shot the informant, so she could spare her own life. Mrs. Wealthy would not be charged with anything, considering, she was one of the victims in this scenario. Realistically, why would Mrs. Wealthy be charged, if anything she should be reimbursed for the loss that she has endured; the courts will more than likely see that Mrs. Wealthy get reimbursed for charges to her credit card. The worst case scenario, the defense could be sent to a mental institution for an evaluation, considering she shot a man and killed him, but I do not foresee her being charge with any criminal offenses, as long as her attorney can prove, she acted out of self-defense. Self-defense is admissible in a court of law, as long as it was self-defense, instead of homicide, which is a serious crime. The defendant, Jack, will more than likely receive a sentence, which would be pleasing to the courts. Again, there may be plea bargains that may take place in court, if the defendant is willing to concede that he is guilty for the crimes that he committed. The aggravating factors could be if the case did not have enough evidence to convict the defendant, which I do foresee that happening. Although, if they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt to get a conviction, which would be an offense punishable for the state that the crime that has been done. Realizing, if there was not enough evidence in the case to seek a conviction against Jack; it would depend solely on the evidence that is gathered. The evidence in the case, is the most important, when the attorney is seeking a conviction, but before that can happen, they will need a grand jury indictment, in order to get the process started. The grand jury will see the evidence and decide from that point, just like they would if it was the

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME jury panel looking at the case. Although, the defendant will have a right to a speedy trial, and


have a right to have a trial were the jury would be present, which would be considered a part of the rights for the defendant in the case. The prosecution does not look at a case to see if there is a chance the defendant can be acquitted, the prosecution will analyze the case, before decide if they can get a conviction. The defense attorney will try to keep his client from getting a conviction in the case. The defense will throw some doubt in the case; in order for the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict on any count would be the primary objective. The courts could ask Jane to seek a drug rehab program, because she was hooked on pain pills, if in fact, this was brought up in a trial. Getting medication for something that you are in pain is one thing, but if they have a problem can order Jane to get into a drug rehab program, because Jane could possibly get into trouble, if in fact, she took medication without the instructions of the doctor. There are laws in place for taking prescription medication illegally, but if she was prescribed the medication, and she abused it, then the courts can react to that as a problem. Prescription medication is nothing to be taken lightly, and it can kill a human being, if they do not take it properly.

Regarding the 4 court cases, A few of these cases results in what I call, a case were the defendant(s) wrongfully committed a crime; were some of the cases did not deserve to be punished, but there were some cases, the defendants deserve their day in court, and was convicted under the law; and received their right to a trial by a jury. In conclusion to these cases, if you are going to commit the crime, knowingly, you committed a crime that was a threat to

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME


society, thereof, should be punished. You cannot escape justice, because what you do in the dark. Will come out in the light. In summary of the Wise case, and to put this in my own words, the wise case proved. If you are going to make threats, you are going to be punished. In summary of the Edwards case, proved a few things, the Negro kids were arrested, because they were practicing their right to freedom of religion, which was an unlawful act on behalf of the local law enforcement in South Carolina. In summary of the case of Adderly v. Florida. The defendants in the case were charged with trespassing, because they were warned before they were arrested; the defendants did not think things through, before they decided to get arrested. If in fact, the defendants would have protested at a state capital building, they would have not been convicted of a crime. In conclusion of this case, the defendants should have looked into the laws, before they decided to go out and do what they did.

Running head: PUBLIC CRIME References US Supreme Court. (1966). Adderly v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39., retrieved from: June 13, 2011 US Supreme Court. (1963). Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229., retrieved from: June 13, 2011 Lincoln, A. (1863). The Gettysburg Address. Abraham Lincoln Online, retrieved from: June 13, 2011 United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. (2000). United States of America v. Johnie Wise and Jack Abbott Grebe, Jr., No. 99-40247., retrieved from:

14 June 14, 2011 US Legal. (2011). Disorderly Conduct Law and Legal Definition., retrieved from: June 14, 2011 US Supreme Court. (1980). United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394., retrieved from: Fairlex. (2011). the definition of embezzlement. The Free Dictionary, retrieved from: June 20, 2011 Internet Scam busters. (N/A). Credit Card Fraud., retrieved from: June 20, 2011