1) Irvin Vs. Dowd

The case of Irvin is centered on a sequence of assassinations in Evanssyille, Indiana, since 1954 to early 1955. Leslie Irvin was arrested by local police in April 1955 announcing that he had confessed to the crimes. Lawyer of Irvin sought a change of location for the case so as to do away with local prejudices though they didn't succeed. Despite statements showing that jury had prejudged the defendant to be guilty, a third of the jury was seated. In January 1956, Irvin was sentenced to death but he escaped soon from the jail leaving a letter maintaining his innocence and asserting misconduct of police and prejudging of his case by the public and also asked his lawyer to appeal (U.S. Supreme Court, 1960). Sometime later, Irvin was arrested again and his motions for appeal were declined by the Indiana Supreme Court. Lawyer of Irvin went to the court demanding for a writ of habeas corpus.

The case came to the court to make a decision on the question of whether escaping of Irvin from the custody deprived him his right to appeal. The justices on the court prone to judicial restraint were not supportive usually of the concept of a writ of habeas corpus being issued by a federal court in state prosecution case (U.S. Supreme Court, 1960). Warren and Brenan were in concern of the jurors who were permitted to sit on the case despite regardless of having prejudged the result.

Initially, Justice Stewart felt that court precedent prevented Supreme Court from being engaged in the prosecution state. Brenan was therefore able to distinguish the Brown case and induced stewards to vote with him resulting to 5-4 majority for the liberals. An opinion was written by Brenan pressurizing the Indiana state to put into consideration appeal of Irvin on the ground of jury issue thus he didn't reach the issue of Irvin's escape. The Irvin case marked the end of a meaningful relationship between the two justices even though Justice Brenan had initiated his Supreme Court career voting with Justice Frankfurter nearly half of the time. Henry Hart, a distinguished Harvard Lawyer Professor was convinced by Frankfurter to focus on the case in the law school's Harvard Law Review as a mode of character-assassinating justice Brennan (U.S. Supreme Court, 1960).

When the case came back to the Supreme Court almost two years later, the court was able to unanimous opinion again remanding the case to state court as a result of the original trial divesting Irvin of 14th Amendment due procedure despite ideological divides. Majority opinion of Justice Clark underscored the need for impartiality in the jury. In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair test by a board, of impartial, indifferent jurors. A concurrence regarding media and its coverage was written by Justice Frankfurter as a means of preventing jurors from delivering neutral verdict.

2) Rideau Vs. Louisiana

Rideau was imprisoned Angola Prison also referred to as Louisiana State penitentiary since 1961 to 2000, convicted in three successive attempts by all-white, all-male juries of murdering bank teller Julia Ferguson in the outcome of bank robbery. In 2005, a fourth trial prior to a mixed race jury of 10 women and 2 men leading to a conviction of homicide for which he was sentenced to twenty one years (U.S. Supreme Court, 1963).

Criminal case of Rideau which dates back to the era of pre-Civil Rights is studied in schools of law popular for landmark resolution made by the United States Supreme Court in regard to the pretrial publicity. The 1961conviction of Rideau was overturned by the Court due to the fact that the local television station in addition to the law enforcement officials filmed a dialogue with the teenager and broadcasted it repeatedly resulting to what was referred to by the court as Kangaroo Court proceedings. In 1964 and 1970, Rideau was retried and each of those convictions was also overturned due to the fact that they were violations constitutionally. After forty years incarceration, he won a new trial due o the fact that black people were eliminated from the 1961 grand jury that indicated him on the charges of murder.

Lake Charles, Louisiana, community was split by the trials and convictions of Rideau along racial line for decades even to fourth and last trial in the year 2005 when the white spectators sat behind the table of prosecutors and those blacks primarily were seating behind the defense. The former partner of Rideau in The Angolite testified in the last Sinclair of Rideau. Jodie Sinclair was criticized by the defense saying that she and her husband were enemies of Rideau and were attempting to exact revenge on Rideau (U.S. Supreme Court, 1963).

Don't wait until tomorrow!

You can use our chat service now for more immediate answers. Contact us anytime to discuss the details of the order

Place an order

Rideau had usually accepting that he robbed the bank, fleeing with the workers and even murdering one of them. The prosecution's forty-year-old version of the occurrences which held that Rideau was lined up with his victims prior to shooting and that Ferguson begged for her life against the contention of the event that Rideau reacted impetuously-first, when the robbery was interrupted a phone call, and then Dora McCain, a worker jumped from the car and ran and the suit was followed by two other workers and the murder was done in panic other than premeditatively, was pitted by the final trial. The elements within version of prosecution were challenged successfully by the defense to the jury's satisfaction.   

3) Sheppard Vs. Maxwell

Sheppard vs. Maxwell was a United States Supreme Court case that scrutinize d the rights of freedom of the press as stated in the first amendment when weighed against right of a fair trial of the defendant as needed by the sixth Amendment. In particular, the court wanted to find out whether or not defendant was not given fair trial for the 2nd degree assassination of his wife, of which he was offended, due to the failure of trial judges to defend Sheppard adequately from the massive, prejudicial, and pervasive publicity that attended his trial (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966).

Sam Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of unfair trial after suffering a trial court conviction of 2nd-degree murder for the clubbing death of his pregnant wife. Sheppard, who upheld his blamelessness of the crime, suspected that the trial judge fell short to defend him from the enormous, prejudicial and widespread publicity that attended his trial. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision following an appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim. The Supreme Court granted certiorari when Sheppard appealed again.

The court found in an 8-1 that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. The court held that freedom of expression is not supposed to be so wide as to redirect an objective, solemn, and calm courtroom setting even though it is supposed to be given great latitude (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966). Media's repeated broadcasts of Sheppard confessing in details to crimes he was charged with later were shown by the Cleveland television, the hostile and unconcealed trial covered by the Cleveland's radio and print media, in addition to physical arrangement of the courtroom itself which eased collaboration among the present media and prosecution, all joined to arouse the jury persons' minds against Sheppard so as not to give him a fair trial. It was concluded by the court that the trial judge should have either rescheduled the proceedings or shifted them to a different avenue.  

4) Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity in Florida vs. Joseph Peter Smith

Carlie Bruce, an eleven year old girl was kidnapped from the parking lot of a car wash in Sarasota, Florida, on 1st February 2004, Sunday evening, when she was walking home from the house of her friend. One or two individuals therefore told the police after seeing on a television a surveillance videotape that showed Brucia apparently being kidnapped that the alleged kidnapper resembled Joseph Peter Smith (Standlar, 2006). Police therefore went to question Peter Smith about disappearance of Brucia on Tuesday 3rd February 2004, and police then arrested Smith for possession of cocaine and drug belongings and also for parole violations.

Smith declined to talk to police in regard to disappearance of Brucia following initial denial of his involvement. On Thursday 5th February 2004 while in jail, smith confessed to someone that he killed Brucia and Smith asserted to the individual body of Brucia could be found. Police found Brucia's body early on Friday morning 6th February 2004 using information from admission by Smith (Standlar, 2006). Crimes such murder, kidnapping, sexual abuse, among others that involves children are amongst the most despised crimes in the United States of America. In accordance, it is anticipated that such crimes will result to a flood of increasingly emotional news reports, of which some will criticize the suspect who is charged with such crimes.

Calculate the Price of Your Paper

300 words

Related essays

  1. Criminal Acts and Choices
  2. How Should Cybercriminals Be Punished
  3. Due Process in Juvenile Courts
Discount applied successfully