Legal Brief.edited

docx

School

Egerton University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

111

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by PrivateYakPerson99

Running head: CASE BRIEF 1 Legal Brief Name Institutional affiliation

LEGAL BRIEF 2 Legal Brief J.D.B. v. North Carolina 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011) Facts J.D.B., who was a student at his seventh grade, was taken out of his social studies class by a uniformed police officer to a meeting room. There, the 13-year-old found two school administrators and legal investigators (U.S.Courts, n.d.). The room was closed, and his questioning began. The police investigator guiding the questioning was Joseph DiCostanzo, and the questioning took approximately 30 to 45 minutes (U.S. Courts, n.d.). The central themes were some recent cases of break-ins in the neighborhood. The reason for his suspicion was his possession of a digital camera that was stolen. J.D.B. started by denying his charges. However, more facts were presented, connecting him to burglaries in the neighborhood. After a confrontation and urges from the principal, he agreed, after asking if he would still be in trouble after turning the stuff back. However, he was warned of facing juvenile detention before he confessed. He then told that he was allowed to refuse answering any more questions. They also allowed him to leave at will. He directed the investigator to the location of the things and then wrote a note. J.D.B. was later given the permission to leave. Issue Would the age of a child affect how a person deemed reasonable in the position of a suspect is likely to perceive the freedom to leave? Answer Yes.

LEGAL BRIEF 3 Decision The North Carolina Supreme Court’s judgment faced a reversal by the federal Supreme Court. The court then decided to remand the case back to the significantly lower court. The latter was to determine whether after considering his age, the juvenile was interrogated from custody. Rationale Including the child's age if he or she is in custody in the analysis, remains consistent with the test nature’s objectivity, provided the officer was aware of it. Consideration is also made if the age is apparent to any reasonable investigator. Officers are competent enough to make an account of all the objective circumstances that rely on a degree, like the number of officers. Similarly, their competence moves to the evaluation of the effect of the relative age of a person. Principle of Law The ruling was in relation to the Miranda laws. The latter requires that for any person under questioning in custody or after deprivation of freedom, the officers must start with waring the person to remain silent if they choose. Any of his or her statements would be used against him or her in court. The laws also determine the state of custody before the warning is deemed fit. The Supreme Court was to decide the relevance of a child's age, who is under police questioning in the custody determination. Miller v. Alabama 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) Facts The case revolves around two 14-year-olds with murder convictions. The court, under the pre-stated mandatory schemes, mandated a life imprisonment without any possibility of parole (Lexis Nexis, n.d.). The Alabama criminal appeals court also denied appealing. The Arkansas

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

LEGAL BRIEF 4 supreme court also denied them habeas relief, albeit the relative argument that life incarceration without any release on parole violated amendment eight. Issue Was there a desecration of the 8 th amendment in the judgment offered by both the Aransas Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of criminal appeals? Answer Yes Decision The judges apprehended that any compulsory life sentencing without any parole offered to people under eighteen years old during their crime committing time violates the eighth amendment (Lexis Nexis, n.d.). The latter prohibits any sorts of cruel and relatively unusual punishments. The state scheme that was used potentially limits the judges' ability to make the judgment by making considerations concerning lessened culpability facing juveniles. Rationale The juvenile offenders received a life detention without any parole. In any way, the penalizing authority lacked any discretion to execute any different type of penance. Despite the judge thinking that youthfulness, the characteristics of the attendant, and the nature of the crime warrants the juvenile a lesser sentence such as spending the rest of life behind bars for life with parole, the scheme dictated the punishment offered. The scheme then violates the cases' requirement of making any individualized punishment. Principle of Law

LEGAL BRIEF 5 The law under consideration is the eighth amendment. The judges considered the nature of the crime, and the punishment met. The amendment prevents any cruel punishments or those considered unusual. Hence, certiorari was necessary. Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S. 551, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005) The respondent, Simmons, committed a planned capital murder at the age of 17 years. He was still a juvenile then. Later, when he had turned 18 years of age, he was given a death sentence (Justia Law, n.d.). He then tried to appeal or seek for a post-conviction relief, which was both rejected. Simmons then filed a new state post-conviction relief for the state, which argued that the constitution had banned the execution of any juvenile. In that respect, the respondent was juvenile at the time of committing the crime (Justia Law, n.d.). The argument relates to the eighth amendment, which the states apply through the fourteenth amendment, and which prohibited the prosecution of any person who was mentally retarded. Issue Is the imposition of capital punishment for juvenile offenders below 18 years prohibited by the eighth amendment? Answer Yes. Decision The Supreme Court primarily held that capital punishment for any juvenile offender violated the eighth amendment. Rationale

LEGAL BRIEF 6 The judgment of the Supreme Court started with an evaluation of the relevant objective indicia concerning a consensus on the meeting of capital punishments to juveniles. In the findings, thirty other states had prohibited the death penalty from being offered to juvenile offenders. Others had maintained the sentences, although with other provisions that excluded juveniles from it. Most of the states that lacked a formal prohibition the punishment had not the frequency of its application. The court then realized that youths were slightly less culpable than the other criminals were, providing numerous reasons. The court considered youths as immature and with and underdeveloped responsibility, they are also vulnerable to influences, and with a less formed character compared to an adult. Hence, the court held that capital punishment for a juvenile violated the eighth amendment. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania 403 U.S. 528, 91 S. Ct. 1976 (1971) Facts In this aspect, several cases were involved. The main issue raised was whether a jury trial was needed in some of the delinquency cases involving juveniles in states, as per the fourteenth amendment. The first instance involved two different boys, aged 15 and 16 (Lexis Nexis, 2020). Their charges were delinquency acts as presented in the Court Of Common Pleas, the juvenile sector of Philadelphia County. One of the cases, as per the laws of Philadelphia, constituted felonies while the other was involved in demeanor actions. In each of the cases, the trial judges denied them a jury trial request. The superior court in the state confirmed the ruling. The other case involved a group of children aged between 11 and 15 years, all facing charges from the juvenile petition in North Carolina (Lexis Nexis, 2020). Their various acts amounted to demeanors under the laws of the state. Their actions were results of protests at

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

LEGAL BRIEF 7 school against assignments. The cases were then consolidated into several groups by the court to ensure effortless hearing. Counsel's objection led to the exclusion of the public in all the cases except two, and denied them a jury hearing, upon request. Issue Does the constitution entitle a jury hearing to juveniles in state proceedings of delinquency? Answer No. Decision The Supreme Court concluded that it is not a constitutional requirement for juveniles to receive a jury trial in the adjudicative stages in the court. Rationale The court created a distinction between the purpose and relative the nature of juvenile courts, and their respective proceedings and other criminal ones. In this aspect, the court noted that the juvenile proceedings were yet to be accorded all the other rights offered to adult criminal trials. The due process in all the cases was found to be fair.

LEGAL BRIEF 8 References Justia Law. (n.d.). Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005). Justia Law . Retrieved 25 March 2020, from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/. Lexis Nexis. (n.d.). Miller v. Alabama | Case Brief for Law School . Lexis Nexis . Community. Retrieved 25 March 2020, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-miller-v-alabama. Lexis Nexis. (2020). McKeiver v. Pennsylvania | Case Brief for Law School. Lexis Nexis . Community. Retrieved 25 March 2020, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-mckeiver-v-pennsylvania- 1864383579. U.S. Courts. (n.d.). Facts and Case Summary - J.D.B. v. North Carolina. United States Courts. Retrieved 25 March 2020, from https://www.uscourts.gov/educational- resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-jdb-v-north-carolina.

Legal Brief.edited

Related Documents