Criminal law case study analysis

Criminal Law Case Study

Summarize the following cases:

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

This case involved a protest where 187 blacks filed a petition. They divided themselves into groups of fifteen people. They would protest in public areas. They wanted to air out grievances that their state had policy segregation. All of these had been organized to take place in South Carolina state house grounds. The strike was peaceful because they did not interfere with smooth running of activities in the City. The police came in to stop the protest: they asked the protesters to disperse and threatened to arrest them. This group of police comprised 30 officers. The protesters instead of cooperating with the police they started chanting patriotic and religious songs. A warrant of arrest was issued where they were convicted of breaching peace (Alldridge, 2001).

When they were arrested, they were denied some rights such as right to speech, freedom of petition and free assembly. The Supreme Court made it clear that in the process of arrest, punishing, and convicting the petitioners: the petitioners were infringed by South Carolina of their rights to speech, and freedom to petition. The court made a statement that the rights are guaranteed and protected by the first and fourth amendment from invasion by the state respectively. The Supreme Court termed this act as expressing peace of unpopular views being made criminal by the South Carolina (Paul, 2008).

2. Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)

This occurred in the U.S. regarding whether it was constitutional to arrest people who protest in front of a jail. The majority opinion raised an issue arguing that the county jails are not public places: the right to assembly was not infringed. There was a contradiction between author Douglas and chief justice warren. Douglas was on the protesters side and said that they never violated or threatened or blocked the entrance to the jail. From the first amendment, public officials are not supposed to have the authority to decide which public place is to be used for expressing of ideas (Acker & Brody, 2011).

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

This case involved a deputy sheriff John William who murdered an apprehended suspect. He was charged with discharging a firearm and depriving the suspect's rights. However, the Criminal Law Act, the crime was not considered as a crime of violence. He was affirmed procedural grounds, which challenged the civil rights conviction Act (Robinson, 2009). The appellants had made a threat to use a weapon of mass destruction. They did this intentionally. They were to face charges of the alleged crime. When the district court refused to charge the jury, they did not abuse discrediting as the offence was said to have an effect on inter-states commerce. The prosecutor made remarks that were not proper in ending his judgment. The exhibition vindicates the jury's claim that indeed the appellants threatened to use a weapon of mass destruction (Paul, 2008).

4. U.S. v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980)

Defendants who were in the federal prison used the window and a bar in their escapade. After three months, they were all recaptured. All the defendants accused the prison of exposing them to harsh conditions, which included frequent occurrence of fire, and there were threats of being beaten to death. From the claim evidence revealed, the trash or beddings that were set on fire by security guards and other inmates were thrown into the defendant's cellblocks. There were also claims that the security guards had beaten inmates and threatened to kill them (Acker & Brody, 2011).

It has not been established as to why the defendants decided to return. It is not known if it is a case of duress or necessary escape. Perhaps it was their wish to go back to the prison where they had previously escaped because of the harsh conditions they faced. The jury had to find reasons as to why they returned. Evidence of the defendants being submitted to harsh conditions should have been submitted to the jury (Robinson, 2009).

Define disorderly conduct.

Disorderly conduct is a situation where a person gets involved in a fight, makes unnecessary noise even when asked to stop, and interrupts with lawful assembly of people intentionally and knowingly.

Part 2

Will the government be successful and obtain a conviction? Explain your answer.

In this case, a threat has been communicated through email. Under the federal law, it is a serious crime to issue threats to government officials. This crime is categorized as a class D or C. felony: it attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years. When such threats transcend national boundaries, it is regarded as a terrorist threat. Moreover, threatening government officials is considered a federal crime. In this case, security officials are obliged to respond to the students as they seek to interfere with the process of administering justice. They do this if they attack those people who are entrusted with the task of administering justice (Alldridge, 2001).

What charges can be brought against inmate Grady? Explain in detail.

Grady must be arrested and charged with grand theft, possession of stolen drinks, and felony escaping the dormitory. Grady must be held without bail. Security must carry out investigations as to how Grady obtained the moonshine and who helped him. Grady must be considered dangerous, and the authorities must conduct appropriate investigations (Paul, 2008).

• Address the following questions regarding the above scenario:

With what crimes can the individuals in the scenario be charged? Explain your reasoning.

Jane

Jane must be charged with extortion because she had the intent of obtaining money from Jack to cover up for a crime. She unlawfully acquired money from Jack and later threatened to harm him. Extortion is different from robbery. Extortion involves future threat. When she asked Jack to send him more money, Jack did not cooperate and threatened to kill him.

Jack

Jack should be charged with felony. He falsely obtained another person's personal property. This is referred to as crime. According to the federal law, any person who has the intent to use another person's private information fraudulently without consent commits felony of the third degree.