Brown v Mississippi

Josh G.

Order the writing of a tailor-made Criminal law Case study

Free quote online

Case study Format .doc

Brown v Mississippi

Download

Read an extract

Reader
Abstract
Contents
Extract

Abstract

Friday March 30th, 1934. A sixty-year old White planter from the Giles community in Mississippi, Raymond Stewart, was found mutilated at approximately 1 o'clock that day, in his house. The police had discovered his body, and requested a physician come. The wounds, large gashes that looked slated, were thought to be caused by an ax. As the police investigated, a large amount of people started to crowd, which became a mob of people. The police investigated and were aware that robbery was involved, and the possibility that the murderers tried to burn his house down was quite feasible based on evidence like a destroyed lamp, and the fact that Mr. Stewart was burned on places on his body.

While the mob lingered, the Sheriff of the area, J.D. Adcock, arrested Mr. Ed Brown, a thirty-year old tenant on Stewart's farm. He was an obvious suspect, and I seem to think that he arrested Mr. Brown partially to appease the crowd. Also on that day, Mr. Henry Shields was arrested in correlation to the Stewart case. Mr. Shields, twenty-seven at the time, lived half a mile away from Stewart's house.

Introduction
Emergence of knowledge economy
Information Technology in a developing country viewed in world context
Communication and information status in selected countries
Financial performance report
Conclusion

Get this table of contents for free after login.

Extract

[...] Justices Clark, Brennan, Douglas, Black and Warren all concurred. Justices Harlan, Whittaker, Frankfurter and Stewart all dissented. The dissenters, led by Harlan, claimed that this case was no reason to re-evaluate the precedents set by Wolf v. Colorado. He also felt the matter in question was not what the five judges agreed on, but " whether states are Constitutionally free to follow it or not as they themselves determine.[13]" One of the most important outcomes of this court case is that the power the police have- to arrest, investigate, and utilize their privileges over suspects- was limited. [...]

[...] On April 1st, Dial returned to the jail where Shields and Brown were being held. He had them undress, and lie over chairs, where he then tied them to the chair, and beat them with a leather strap that was studded with metal. Dial continued to threaten violence. He told them that he wanted them to confess to the murders, and they too agreed. The authorities decided that they would waste no time in trying the three men, and got a grand jury set up, consisting of two sheriffs and eight white men. [...]

[...] Three Cleveland officers went to her house to investigate. On arrival, Mapp called her lawyer, and refused to let the three officers into her house without a warrant. They were forced to oblige, and left. About three hours later, more officers again arrived on the scene. When Mapp did not show up to the door promptly, policemen gained access themselves. Mapp's lawyer showed up, but the policemen did not let her see him. These officers held a piece of paper that they claimed was a warrant. [...]

[...] These warnings allow those uneducated in the field of law to realize that they do not have to comply with the police at first, and that an educated practitioner of law is entitled to him to assist. References 1. Biskupic, J., Witt, E. (1997) The Supreme Court and the Powers of the American Government Washington D.C., Congressional Quarterly 2. Brown v. Mississippi U.S. 278-287 (1936) 3. Cortner, R. (1986) A "Scottsboro" Case in Mississippi: The Supreme Court and Brown v. Mississippi Jackson, MS, Univ. Press of Mississippi 4. Furman v. Georgia U.S (1972) 5. Gideon v. Wainwright U.S (1963) 6. Gribben, M. (2001) Miranda v Arizona: The Trial That Changed American [...]

[...] to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices heard the case on the grounds that the death penalty is unconstitutional because the Eighth Amendment makes it illegal to employ, “cruel and unusual punishment.” On June 29th Furman was found to not receive the death penalty on a split court, where 5 of the judges concurred, while 4 dissented on the decision. Two of the justices, Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall, wanted to get rid of capital punishment altogether. Justices Burger, Blackmun, Rehnquist, and Powell, all notable because they were all appointed by Richard Nixon, felt that the death penalty was necessary and legal. [...]

doc