DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held St. John's Law Review Volume 44 Number 2 Volume 44, October 1969, Number 2 Article 8 Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held No Bar to Imposition of Harsher Penalty Upon Retrial--Due Process Mandates Credit for Time Previously Served (North Carolina v. Pearce, U.S. 1969) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DOUBLE JEOP- ARDY HELD No BAR To IMPOSITION OF HARSHER PENALTY UPON RE-TRIAL - DUE PROCESS MANDATES CREDIT FOR TIME PREVIOUSLY SERVED. -North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969). Respondent Pearce was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and sentenced to a term of 12 to 15 years in prison. Upon seek- ing post-conviction relief, he was awarded a new trial at which he was again convicted and sentenced to an 8 year prison term which, when complemented by the time previously served, amounted to a greater penalty than that originally imposed. Similarly, respondent Rice pleaded guilty to four counts of second degree burglary, and was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 10 years for all 4 counts. These judgments were later set aside; respondent was retried on 3 of the original counts, convicted and sentenced to prison for a total of 25 years without compensation for time already served. On appeal, the Supreme Court, upholding the lower courts' re- versals of both sentences, held that while neither the double jeopardy nor the equal protection clause imposes an absolute bar to a more severe sentence, the constitutional guarantee against multiple punish- ment requires that the punishment already exacted be fully credited upon resentencing, and that the sentencing court include affirmative findings to support their action when augmenting the original sentence. The problems illuminated by the companion cases of North Carolina v. Pearce1 and Simpson v. Rice2 are not of recent conception. As early as 1873, the Court construed the double jeopardy clause to prohibit more than one punishment for the same offense. In Ex parte Lange3 the defendant, sentenced to a prison term and fined, had paid the fine before discovering that state law provided for either imprison- ment or fine. Recognizing that no man lawfully can be twice punished for the same offense, the Court ordered the defendant's release from prison. Similarly, in United States v. Benz,4 the defendant successfully petitioned to have his sentence reduced from 10 months to 6. While the issue presented involved the district court's power to decrease a convict's sentence, the Supreme Court observed by way of strong dicta, 1395 U.S. 711 (1969). 2 Id. The Supreme Court consolidated the two appeals and rendered one opinion. 3 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873). The Lange Court established a defendant's immunity from an increased sentence in the absence of a self-initiated appeal. This right, in the Court's view, was founded upon the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. 4282 US. 304 (1931). RECENT DEVELOPMENTS that an increase affecting the sentence upon a valid conviction would be violative of the double jeopardy clause in that the defendant would be subjected to double punishment for the same offense." Despite such broad propositions, the Court has never squarely held the imposition of an increased penalty upon retrial to be per se viola- tive of the Constitution. For example, in Murphy v. Massachusetts,8 upon vacation of the original sentence, the defendant received a sen- tence greater than that which had been set aside. On appeal, the Court, ignoring the "chilling effects" of such a rationale upon the defendant's right of appeal, held that as the second sentence resulted from the defendant's own initiative, the former conviction and partial service of sentence constituted no bar to the imposition of a greater sentence. The Murphy rationale was invoked and implicitly reaffirmed in Stroud v. United States,7 wherein the defendant received the death penalty upon retrial following the successful appeal of a life sentence. That case, however, argued on the theory that the defendant was twice put in jeopardy for the identical offense, did not present the Court with the question of whether risk of an increased penalty on retrial con- stitutes a second punishment for the same offense. So distinguished, Stroud is assertive of the proposition that a sustained attack upon an original conviction does not, by force of the double jeopardy clause, absolutely immunize the defendant from reprosecution. Green v. United States8 greatly clarified the intention of the Court in Stroud. A conviction of second degree murder was reversed on 5 Id. at 307. The defendant's sentence may not be increased once it has commenced. To compel him to risk an increased sentence in order to exercise his right to a fair trial is equivalent to requiring that the defendant relinquish the immunity accorded the prior sentence in order to exercise his constitutional rights. 6 177 U.S. 155 (1900). 7251 U.S. 15 (1919). Robinson v. United States, 324 U.S. 282 (1945), has also been cited as supportive of the validity of increased sentences upon retrial. In Robinson, the defendant's sentence was increased upon retrial from life imprisonment to death. The court of appeals judgment was affirmed on certiorari without reference to the increased sentence. Indeed, the sole question presented and resolved related to the court's statutory authority to impose the death sentence under the Federal Kidnapping Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 408, 414(a), 419(a)(b) (1940), as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 10, 1201-02 (1964). Accordingly, Robinson would be of doubtful force as authority for allowing an increase upon retrial. 8 355 U.S. 184 (1957). The Court had earlier held that a defendant, successful on appeal, may be exposed to a sentence as severe as that previously imposed, but neither condoned nor prohibited a more severe penalty. See United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 622 (1896). A second trial after the defendant's appeal had been justified on the grounds that the accused had "waived" his plea of former jeopardy. See Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873). However, in the circumstances of Green a new trial would be barred following a successful appeal. Insofar as the first verdict was "an implicit acquittal" of the original charge, the Court rejected arguments that Green had "waived" the constitu. tional prohibition against double jeopardy. See generally Mayers & Yarborough, Bis Vexari, New Trials and Successful Prosecutions, 74 HAv. L. R1v. 1 (1960). ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [VOL. 4 appeal, and the defendant was retried, found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court, reasoning that the initial conviction implied acquittal of any higher degree of the same crime, reversed, holding the second conviction violative of the double jeopardy protection against reprosecution. Green could be reprosecuted, but for no crime greater than second degree murder. While the issue of reprosecution had been determined, the question of resentencing re- mained for future resolution. The guarantee against double jeopardy was held to impose no restrictions upon the length of a sentence imposed upon reconviction. Indeed, as Stroud had previously demonstrated, it had been long estab- lished that the courts were authorized to impose whatever sentence the law prescribed. Marano v. United States9 was the first decision to take issue with what had theretofore remained within the unfettered discre- tionary power of the courts. The defendant had been sentenced to three years in prison upon conviction in a district court for receiving stolen goods in interstate commerce. Upon appeal, the conviction was vacated ° and a new trial awarded at which the defendant was recon- victed and sentenced to a five year term. The judge, who had presided at both trials, noted, as the basis for the longer sentence, the evaluation of the presentence report and the additional testimony produced at the second trial." However, reversing on appeal, the First Circuit held that the increased term was improper since the introduction of the addi- tional testimony impinged upon the defendant's unfettered right of appeal. 12 Manifestly, absent "substantial justification" a defendant should not be deterred in the exercise of this right due to the danger that this might result in the imposition of a direct penalty. Presaging things to come, however, the court further concluded by way of dicta that it was not inappropriate for a trial court to consider subsequent 9 374 F.2d 583 (Ist Cir. 1967). 10 Kitchell v. United States, 354 F.2d 715 (Ist Cir. 1965). Marano was tried and convicted along with several other defendants; all but one were successful on appeal. 11 It is not without significance that where a subsequent plea of not guilty is inter- posed at the second trial, the state, in view of such contested facts, is compelled to present further independent evidence of the defendant's guilt. Nevertheless, the Marano court rejected such additional testimony as a basis of an increased sentence, despite the settled doctrine that the state may enter new evidence against the defendant at retrial. While such a distinction may appear overly refined, it is indeed constitutionally sound. See United States v. Shatwell Mfg. Co., 355 U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
    Case 3:13-cr-00731-DRD-MEL Document 187 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff v. Criminal No. 13-731 (DRD) William Rosado-Cancel (1) Juan Antonio Rosario-Cintron (2) Defendants OPINION & ORDER Defendants William Rosado-Cancel1 and Juan Antonio Rosario-Cintrón (“Defendants”) move the Court to dismiss the two-count indictment on double jeopardy and/or issue preclusion grounds in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark Sanchez Valle decision. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863 (2016). However, it is a “fundamental principle that an accused must suffer jeopardy before he can suffer double jeopardy.” Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 393 (1975). Until now, despite being charged in commonwealth court, Defendants have yet to suffer jeopardy. Defendants’ issue preclusion argument also falters for several reasons: (1) jeopardy did not attach to the commonwealth pretrial proceedings, (2) the argument was untimely, and/or (3) there was no privity between the federal and Puerto Rico prosecutors. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López’s reasoning and DENIES each Defendant’s motion to dismiss.2 1 The Court notes that this defendant has already pled guilty in this case. See Docket No. 142. 2 Both defendants use the same arguments, challenge the same charges, and are part of the same nucleus of facts. As such, the Court addresses both motions jointly in the instant opinion and order. Case 3:13-cr-00731-DRD-MEL Document 187 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 15 I.
    [Show full text]
  • 15-108 Puerto Rico V. Sanchez Valle (06/09/2016)
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO v. SANCHEZ VALLE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO No. 15–108. Argued January 13, 2016—Decided June 9, 2016 Respondents Luis Sánchez Valle and Jaime Gómez Vázquez each sold a gun to an undercover police officer. Puerto Rican prosecutors indict­ ed them for illegally selling firearms in violation of the Puerto Rico Arms Act of 2000. While those charges were pending, federal grand juries also indicted them, based on the same transactions, for viola­ tions of analogous U. S. gun trafficking statutes. Both defendants pleaded guilty to the federal charges and moved to dismiss the pend­ ing Commonwealth charges on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court in each case dismissed the charges, rejecting prosecutors’ ar­ guments that Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sover­ eigns for double jeopardy purposes and so could bring successive prosecutions against each defendant. The Puerto Rico Court of Ap­ peals consolidated the cases and reversed. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico granted review and held, in line with the trial court, that Puerto Rico’s gun sale prosecutions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
    [Show full text]
  • IS LESS Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE
    HAMBURGER.BOOK.DOC 4/13/04 9:44 PM ESSAY MORE IS LESS∗ Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE INALIENABLE .................................................... 838 A. The Inalienable Character of Religious Liberty ................. 839 B. The Definition of Religious Liberty..................................... 848 II. BOTH MORE AND LESS ................................................................. 858 A. The Contingency of Free Exercise in the Courts ................ 858 B. Mere Definition Rather than Condition? ............................ 861 C. Historical Explanations......................................................... 864 D. Expansion and Contingency................................................. 869 E. The Absolute Right of Religious Belief ............................... 872 F. Fratricide (or the Periphery Undermines the Core) ........... 874 G. No Harm, No Foul? .............................................................. 882 H. Other Examples..................................................................... 885 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 890 S the First Amendment’s right of free exercise of religion condi- I tional upon government interests? Many eighteenth-century Americans said it was utterly unconditional. For example, James Madison and numerous contemporaries declared in 1785 that “the right of every man to exercise [‘Religion’] . is in its nature an un- alienable right” and “therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by
    [Show full text]
  • State of West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
    STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS FILED State of West Virginia, October 30, 2014 released at 3:00 p.m. Plaintiff Below, Respondent RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA vs) No. 13-1122 (Cabell County 09-F-023) Robert Frazier, Defendant Below, Petitioner MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioner Robert Frazier, by counsel, Crystal L. Walden, appeals the October 15, 2013, Order of the Circuit Court of Cabell County sentencing him to serve forty years in the penitentiary following his second degree murder conviction. The State, by counsel, Julie A. Warren, Assistant Attorney General, filed a response. This Court has considered the parties’ briefs, oral arguments, and the appendix record on appeal. We find no substantial question of law and a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure. For the reasons expressed below, the decision of the trial court is affirmed, in part, and vacated, in part. Factual and Procedural History On August 25, 2008, petitioner shot his girlfriend, fifty-three-year-old Kathy Smith, in the head with a 12 gauge shotgun following a domestic dispute. This shot was instantaneously fatal. Petitioner was charged with first degree murder. Following a jury trial in 2010, petitioner was convicted of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced petitioner to forty years imprisonment. Petitioner appealed, and this Court reversed the conviction and granted a new trial on the basis that petitioner’s rights under the Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article III section 14 of the West Virginia Constitution had been violated.1 In September of 2013, petitioner was tried again for the murder of Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 33 | Number 2 Article 8 2-1-1955 Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles Kivett, Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service, 33 N.C. L. Rev. 262 (1955). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol33/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33 state corporation receives the same benefits and protection as intra- state vendors.20 If such an analysis is correct, the decision should have little prac- tical effect upon the present administration and collection of use taxes,21 because the way will have been left open to impose tax collecting obli- gations on foreign corporations which make deliveries into a taxing state after encroaching upon its markets by inducing (e.g., by direct advertising, mail and telephone solicitation, etc.) its customers to cross the state line for tax-saving purposes. On the other hand, if this decision means that such corporations may now escape liability, its effect will no doubt be to increase the number of merchants seeking to capitalize on the sales tax of neighboring states at the expense of the local market, thereby further increasing the difficulties of adminis- tration and collection of the use tax.
    [Show full text]
  • State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1986 State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A. Farber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A., "State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause." (1986). Constitutional Commentary. 173. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE REGULATION AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Daniel A. Farber* The commerce clause empowers Congress to "regulate Com­ merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."I Although it speaks only of congressional power, the clause has been interpreted to empower the federal courts to enjoin state laws that interfere unduly with interstate commerce.z Since the Marshall Court, the Supreme Court has continually modified its definition of the judicial role in overseeing state regula­ tion.3 The Court's current view of the so-called "dormant" com­ merce clause, in a nutshell, is as follows.4 State regulations having a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce are subject to stringent judicial scrutiny even if the discrimination was inadvertent.S On the other hand, regulations that burden interstate commerce without discriminating against it are subject to a less rigorous balancing test:6 a state law that burdens local and interstate commerce equally will be upheld if the law's local benefits outweigh the burden * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What the Dialogue (Still) Has to Teach Us
    MONAGHAN IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 9/16/2019 3:03 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 69 OCTOBER 2019 NUMBER 1 JURISDICTION STRIPPING CIRCA 2020: WHAT THE DIALOGUE (STILL) HAS TO TEACH US HENRY P. MONAGHAN† ABSTRACT Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................2 A. 1953 and Beyond ......................................................................2 B. The Dialogue: A Preliminary Look ........................................5 I. The Essential Role of the Supreme Court ........................................10 A. Hart and the Court’s Essential Role....................................10 B. The Critical Responses and the Apparently Dominant View.........................................................................................13 C. Textual and Other Ambiguities ............................................16 D. The Supreme Court, Limited Government, and the Rule of Law...........................................................................................21 E. Purpose and Jurisdiction-Stripping ......................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Brief in Support of Appeal of Dismissal
    20140194 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 25, 2014 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Paul J. Sorum ) Petitioner and Appellant ) SUPREME COURT vs. ) No. 20140194 Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota ) Drew Wrigley, Lt. Governor of North Dakota ) Ryan Taylor, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Governor of ND ) Ellen Chaffee, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Lt. Gov. of ND ) Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State ) Respondents and Appellees ) (Ref. Burleigh County CASE NO. 08-2014-CV-0173) APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DISMISSAL Brief By: Paul J. Sorum, Petitioner/Appellant 3501 Calypso Dr, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 Phone: 701-219-5601 I Table of Contents Section Paragraph Nature and Facts of Case and Proceedings ............................................... 1 Legal Argument ......................................................................................... 18 Discrimination is Severe and Pervasive ................................................... 51 Relief Requested ......................................................................................... 65 II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASE LAW Citation Paragraph Ableman v. Booth, 62 US 506 - Supreme Court 1859 ..................................................... 14 Francis v. Francis, 2014 ND 111 - ND: Supreme Court 2014 ........................................ 28 Gullickson v. Kline, 2004 ND 76, ¶ 16, 678 N.W.2d 138 ................................................ 28 Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F. 3d 130 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2008 ........... 51 James Valley Grain v. David, 2011 ND 160, 802 N.W.2d 158 ...................................... 1(3) Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d 743, 750-51 (N.D. 1955) ..................... 21, 22, 23, 24, 47, 48, 49 North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07................................... 3, 6, 23, 26, 48 Parr v. Woodmen, 791 F. 2d 888 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986 .................. 54, 55 Planned Parenthood v.
    [Show full text]
  • 1:12-Cv-09598 Document #: 60 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 1 of 13 Pageid
    Case: 1:12-cv-09598 Document #: 60 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:<pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ETHAN E. BICKELHAUPT, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 12 C 9598 ) KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official ) Judge Sara L. Ellis capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department ) of Health and Human Services, and ) DAVID LEVINSON, in his official capacity ) as Inspector General of the U.S. Department ) of Health and Human Services, ) ) Defendants. ) OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Ethan Bickelhaupt, a physician, brings this action to challenge his five year exclusion from receiving reimbursements from government health care programs. After his 2010 felony drug conviction, Bickelhaupt was excluded from government health care programs by Defendants David Levinson, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services (collectively, the “Department”). Bickelhaupt unsuccessfully opposed his exclusion before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) and an appeals board. Bickelhaupt contends that his exclusion from government health care programs is illegal because it violates: the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), the equal protection clause, and the Rehabilitation Act. Now before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment, brought by both Bickelhaupt [28] and the Department [41]. The Court denies Bickelhaupt’s motion and grants the Department’s motion because Bickelhaupt’s exclusion does not constitute double jeopardy as it is merely a civil penalty, the Department did not violate the APA in interpreting Case: 1:12-cv-09598 Document #: 60 Filed: 05/29/14 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:<pageID> the scope of exclusion, his exclusion is rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and the Rehabilitation Act does not bar exclusion where Bickelhaupt engaged in illegal conduct separate and apart from his addiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Jeopardy and Due Process Barry Siegal
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 59 | Issue 2 Article 10 1968 Double Jeopardy and Due Process Barry Siegal Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Barry Siegal, Double Jeopardy and Due Process, 59 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 247 (1968) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. DOUBLE JEOPARDY when such inspection will not interfere 2. The substance or text of the charge, with Department use. such as a complaint or indictment. D. Arrest reports, arrest records, supple- 3. The identity of the investigating and mentary reports and photographs will arresting unit and the length of the not be open for inspection to representatives investigation. of the press or other news media. 4. The circumstances immediately sur- E. From the time a person is arrested until the rounding an arrest, including the time proceeding has been terminated by trial or and place of arrest, resistance, pursuit, olherwise, the following types of information possession and use of weapons, and a will not be made available to the press or news description of items seized at the time media: of arrest. 1. Observations about an arrestee's charac- G. The officer in charge of an investigation ter or prior criminal record.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourteenth Amendment
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1671 The Fourteenth Amendment and States’ Rights ............................................................. 1671 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1671 Privileges or Immunities .................................................................................................... 1674 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1678 Generally ...................................................................................................................... 1678 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 1679 ‘‘Person’’ ................................................................................................................. 1679 ‘‘Property’’ and Police Power ............................................................................... 1681 ‘‘Liberty’’ ................................................................................................................ 1682 The Rise and Fall of Economic Substantive Due Process: Overview ...................... 1682 Regulation of Labor Conditions .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHN SMITH PETITIONER vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RESPONDENT ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI John Smith, DC # 749343 Zephyrhills Correctional Institution 2739 Gall Boulevard Zephyrhills, Fl 33541-9701 Petitioner, Pro Se pOVDE0 ~jy ILL CA. 4 20 zep OCT 2 QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner, John Smith tenders this question, which should be agreed upon to hear, and decide: Does treating a dismissed appeal of a mentally incompetent prisoner's case, who in good faith, untimely filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, constitute a denied right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution if appeal is not reinstated once the deficiency is corrected. LIST OF PARTIES [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . 4 OPINIONSBELOW .......................................................................................................... 5 JURISDICTION................................................................................................................6 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .........................7 STATEMENTOF THE CASE ...........................................................................................8
    [Show full text]