How the Dealth Penalty relates to Lockett v Ohio


Click here to get an A+ paper at a Discount

Paper instructions:
Following is a list of recent Death Penalty cases. Choose ONE of the following cases a post a CASE BRIEF describing the case. TO LOCATE THE CASE, TYPE THE CASE NAME INTO GOOGLE. In addition to the full case you may find case briefs on the case you choose.
EXAMPLE :Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Facts: Acting on a suspicion that Katz was transmitting gambling information over the phone to clients in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the outside of a public phone booth used by Katz. Katz closed the door to the phone booth when he used it. Based on recordings of his end of the conversations, Katz was convicted for the illegal transmission of wagering information.

Issue: Does a citizen have both a subjectively reasonable and an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in his telephone conversation when that conversation is conducted in a closed phone booth?

Holding: Yes; a criminal defendant who manifests his intent and expectation that his activity will be private in an objectively reasonable manner, is entitled to privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court established that “the Fourth Amendment protects people not places,” therefore the fact that Katz was in a public phone booth did not mean that he could not manifest a legitimate expectation of privacy. When a citizen has an expectation of privacy that is BOTH objectively and subjectively reasonable, the Fourth Amendment protects that citizen from search without a warrant. Katz demonstrated a legitimate “subjective” expectation of privacy in that when he closed the door to the phone booth, he believed (in his own mind) that his conversations were private. Most people in American society would say that Katz was reasonable in this belief, therefore he had an “objectively” reasonable expectation of privacy.

Significance: This is a landmark case in search and seizure – the Supreme Court re-interpreted the scope of the Fourth Amendment and enlarged its practical protection.

Student Case Brief Evaluation Rubric

Here is a breakdown on the points available for Discussion Board responses involving CASE BRIEFS:

Points Possible

Points Earned

I. Demonstrates ability to evaluate and set out essential facts forming the basis for the case and the application of the law by the Court. Facts of the Case may not be copied from the case but must be summarized in three to four sentences.

1

II. Demonstrates adequate comprehension of the topic of the Case through analysis and statement of the primary Issue in the Case.

2

II. Demonstrates ability to analyze Case Facts and Issues by clearly articulating the Holding by the Court in the Case

3

IV. Demonstrates knowledge of legal issues, theories and subject matter by accurately stating the Reasoning and Significance of the Case

3

IV. Demonstrates effective communication skills through organization, writing style, grammar, and sentence structure

1

Total Points

10

Selected Case- 1978 Lockett v Ohio

Click here to get an A+ paper at a Discount


Order This Paper Now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Order Now

Top