Case Brief Funk vs. United States Supreme Court of the United States 290 U.S. 371‚ 54 S. Ct. 212 (1933) Facts: Funk was tried twice and convicted both times in Federal District Court for conspiracy to violate the prohibition law. In the first appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals the decision of the Federal District Court was reversed due to issues not applicable here. 46 F.2d 417. In both trials the defendant called upon his wife to testify on his behalf and she was excluded
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States
Case of Braswell v. United States Team A Bridget Sarris‚ Bonnie Kyle‚ Erlyn Cruz‚ Ernest Snyder LAW / 421 Robert Tisher May 27‚ 2013 BRASWELL v. UNITED STATES This case presents the question whether the custodian of corporate records may resist a subpoena for such records on the ground that the act of production would incriminate him in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We conclude that he may not. From 1965 to 1980‚ petitioner Randy Braswell operated his business — which comprises
Premium Legal entities Supreme Court of the United States Business law
Issue: Barry Jewell was convicted of burglary with a deadly weapon resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class A felony. Also‚ Battery resulting in serious bodily injury‚ a class C felony. Rule: The court used the case‚ Ellyson V. State‚ 603 N.E.2d 1369‚ 1373 (Ind. Ct.App.1992) In that case‚ Ellyson was charged with burglary because he broke into the house where him and his estranged wife lived with the intent to rape her. He was still charged with burglary even though he had the right to possession
Premium Felony Marriage Crimes
Cravens 09/10/2013 CRJ 251 METZGER BRIEF STATE V. METZGER 319 N.W.2d 459 (Neb. 1982) FACTS: Defendant was seen naked with his arms at his sides from the thighs on up at his apartment window by another resident. Resident notified police on the act. The officers testified that they observed Metzger standing within a foot the window eating a bowl of cereal and that they also‚ seen that his body was nude from the mid-thigh on up. The defendant’s case was dismissed. LEGAL ISSUE: Was the
Premium Law Appeal
Legal Brief 10/24/11 Citation: Charles T. Schenck v. United States‚ Supreme Court of the United States‚ 1919 Issue: Whether distributing anti-conscription literature during war time is protected under the First Amendment. Relief Sought: Schenck did not want to be convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 so he appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Facts: Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America. Socialists believed that the war had been caused
Free Supreme Court of the United States First Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
State v. McNeely 358 S.W.3d 65 MO. (2012) Facts: The defendant was stopped by a Missouri state highway patrolman for speeding and during this stop the trooper noticed that the defendant was displaying all the tell-tale signs of being intoxicated; blood shot eyes‚ slurred speech‚ and the smell of alcohol on his breath. This stop then changed from being a speeding stop to a DWI investigation. The trooper had the defendant get out of his truck and perform standard field sobriety tests. The defendant
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ruled incorrectly in the United States v. Bass: The rulings of the Supreme Court against the case of United States v. Bass were incorrect because of various reasons; the courts in the United States had charged many blacks with offenses which were death-eligible‚ which blacks were twice more than the whites. It is more often engaged in a plea bargains with the whites than the blacks. This is a clear indication of the discrimination against black people‚ thus the rulings of the case of John Bass were influenced
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Black people
Braswell v. United States Introduction The Fifth Amendment of US Constitution provides a significant protection for accused persons. In particular‚ the Fifth Amendment provides guarantees for due process‚ protection against double jeopardy and against the self-incrimination. My paper focuses on the guarantee against the self-incrimination. Thus‚ the Fifth Amendment stipulates that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. At the same time‚ it is not specified
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution
U.S. Supreme Court UNITED STATES v. NIXON‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 418 U.S. 683 UNITED STATES v. NIXON‚ PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES‚ ET AL. CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 73-1766. Decided By: Burger Court (1972-1975) Argued July 8‚ 1974. Decided July 24‚ 1974. * Defending Attorney for the President: James D. St. Clair Prosecuting Attorney’s for the United States: Leon Jaworski & Philip A. Lacovara On
Premium Richard Nixon President of the United States Supreme Court of the United States
Facts: In the Case of Blackshades v. the United States‚ defendant Alex Yucel‚ a citizen of Sweden‚ was charged with computer hacking using the malware‚ “RAT‚” under his company called Blackshades. Since he is the founder of the Blackshades‚ “Rat” had sold the malicious software to 6‚000 customers. Blackshades is a malware which includes a remote tool‚ called “RAT.” With the malware‚ it enables it to control the victims’ computers. According to the plaintiff‚ the federal government‚ Blackshades
Premium Computer security Security Computer