Case 1
The Supreme Court ruled many landmark cases in the past years. The first case was that of Engel v. Vitale who was decided in the year 1962. The case was related to the students where the action of nondenominational prayers that acknowledged dependence upon God by the New York school systems was challenged in court as unconstitutional state establishment of the religion infringement in the first amendment of the constitution. The supreme agreed with the in alliance with the case presented and stated that the government could not sponsor the religious activities in the schools ( United States Courts , 2018). The Constitutional Amendment that was under scrutiny, in this case, was the First Amendment which elaborates more on the five freedoms which are freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and petition.
Case 2
Another landmark case was that of Gideon v.Wainwright which was decided in the year 1963. The holding of the case was about the provision of the representation of the indigent defendant without charge. For instance, Gideon was accused of felony charges thus as being indigent, Gideon petitioned the provision of a free attorney without spending money. His request was denied by the Judge. But the Supreme Court ruled on Gideon’s favor according to the sixth amendment ( United States Courts , 2018). The constitutional amendment that was under scrutiny, in this case, was the sixth amendment which specifies the right of the provision of a free attorney for free without paying.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Case 3
The third landmark case was decided in the year1975 which involved Goss v. Lopez. The case holding was about the process of rights that students are entailed to. For instance, the case involved five students who were given a ten-day suspension for disruptive behaviors without the process protection. Unfortunately, the case was ruled for the students by the Supreme Court stating that only the state has just the right to deprive those students with education without the insurance of the due process protection ( United States Courts , 2018). The constitutional amendment that was under survey, in this case, was the Eighth amendment which states that no cruel and unusual punishments should be inflicted.
Case 4
The fourth case was decided in the year 1961. It involved Mapp v. Ohio. The holding was about the illegality of material obtainment cannot be used in the criminal trial. Police arrested Dollree Mapp’s after discovering an obscene material while searching her house and she was arrested. During the instance, the police did not produce the search warrant. Thus Dollree argued to the court that the evidence discovered should be concealed as efforts of unlawful search. The Supreme Court agreed to her arguments and decided to apply to the states the exclusionary rule ( United States Courts , 2018). Therefore, the constitutional amendment that was under survey, in this case, was the fourth amendment which states that no unreasonable searches should be conducted and seizures without a legal warrant which alternatively defines the right to privacy.
Case 5
The fifth landmark case was decided in the year 1966. The case involved Miranda v. Arizona. The holding of the case was about informing the suspects of their rights before questioning by the police. Under this case, Ernesto Miranda decided to confess on his rape and to kidnap felony after hours of interrogation by the police officer. During his trial, Ernesto Miranda tended to comment on his disclosure claiming he was not offered his rights to the council of remaining silent. The Supreme Court accorded in regards to holding the police that must inform the suspects their fundamental rights before questioning them ( United States Courts , 2018). The constitutional amendment that was under survey, in this case, was the Fifth Amendment which states that the protection against forced self-accusation which protects the suspect’s right to remain silent.
Case 6
The sixth and most interesting case was decided in the year 1974. The case was between the U.S. v. Nixon. The holding of the case was about the president not being above the law. After audio tapes conversations were liked by the special prosecutor about the Watergate affair in the oval office conversation the president refused to give up the tape by the privilege of being an executive. The Supreme Court stated that if the national security was not compromised, then the president has the right to the executive opportunities ( United States Courts , 2018). The constitutional amendment that was under survey, in this case, was the twenty-fifth amendment which relates to the issues that are connected to the president’s succession and disability.
Q2.
A writ of habeas corpus is mainly known as the court order that is presented to a person that is holding another individual in custody thus required to provide the person to the court of law with legal documents regarding his holding or rather detention (Tyler, 2015). At most when the defendants tend to challenge the legal basis of their imprisonment and the duration, the confinement might time lead to relief from the court through the filling of a writ of habeas corpus. The writ of habeas corpus was to be prohibited by the framers of the United States of America Constitution which resulted to the inclusion of the clause in the constitution that enabled the courts to offer writ of habeas corpus. The court might hold an evidentiary hearing that is before ruling out the writ of habeas corpus where there are disputed facts in the case (Tyler, 2015). For instance, under the case of Johnson v. Avery, a prisoner was disciplined for violating the prison rules which prohibited on aiding other inmates with the preparation of Writs. This instance led the district court to annul the regulation because it conflicted with the twenty-eighth U.S.C and affected the baring of the prisoner from assessing the federal habeas corpus (Tyler, 2015).
The most common reasons why the prisoners tend to file the habeas corpus writs is because of they to relief some of the privileges as opposed when they are in jail. For instance, a habeas corpus writ releases the prisoner from custody which is always a common thing that the prisoners want. Also, a habeas corpus writ reduces the prisoner’s sentence. It is also the most common end product that is always anticipated by the prisoners when they file habeas corpus writs. Lastly, submitting a habeas corpus writs ensure the declaration of rights which is also another common thing that the prisoners consider when filing a habeas corpus writs. The prisoner might argue on the perspective of his/her credit awards to his/her sentence so that the habeas corpus writs ruling may be awarded on his favor (Tyler, 2015).
References
United States Courts. (2018). Supreme Court Landmarks. United States Courts . Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks
Tyler, A. L. (2015). Habeas Corpus and the American Revolution. Cal. L. Rev. , 103 , 635.
