American Government - Laufenberg Public Feed for tag supct11

Create a Post

Kawashima v. Holder

Posted by Rashaun Williams in American Government - Laufenberg on

​The Case Issue
“Can filing a false tax return count as an “aggravated felony” for purposes of a statute that subjects an immigrant convicted of an “aggravated felony” to deportation.”
(Can immigrants who file a false tax reports be deported)

The Law’s being Challenged
An aggravated felony is when someone lies about over $10,000 and/or when the government losses over $10,000 in tax return money.
(Section 7201 of title 26  explains this)

The Law’s History
Immigration law allows the US government to deport anyone who has committed an “aggravated felony.” At first it only applied to crimes such as murder and drug trafficking, but congress has expanded the definition overtime.

What Happened
Akio and Fusako Kawashima, a Japanese couple falsely reported their income taxes. They’ve been citizens of the US since 1984 (27 years). In 1997, Mr. Kawashima filled a false corporate tax return and his wife helped him. It made them seem as though they made less money then they actually did which illegally exempted them from paying government of owed tax money. They lied, and it cost the government over $10,000 in tax revenue. Section 7206 of the tax code was violated due to these actions.

Kawashimas were convicted of a violation under Section 7206, the tax code, not tax evasion which violates Section 7201. Because of this, they weren’t deported. The government still started to deport them which would relate to Section 7206.

The Question to the Supreme Court
Do the Kawashimas fall under Section 7201 even though they violated Section 7206.

My Prediction
At 1st, I thought they were a lost cause, but they have an awesome lawyers, so now I think they might actually win and stay in America, but still face consequences for disobeying the laws under Section 7201.

SCOTUS Case: Gonzales v. Thaler

Posted by Chelsea Starks in American Government - Laufenberg on

    1. Constitutional Question
      -  Was there jurisdiction to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and to adjudicate Gonzalez's appeal?

      - Did the application for a writ of habeas corpus run out of time under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) due to the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review?

    2. Facts of the Case
      - Gonzalez was convicted of murder in Texas, June 14, 2005 in a 1995 shooting and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
      - It actually took them six years to indict him on that murder rap.
      - He filed for an appeal in the Texas intermediate court of appeals which was the same court that confirmed his conviction July 12, 2006.
      - Only problem with that was that his lawyer did not file a petition for another review of his case with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within the 30-day time limit given by state law. 
      - Because that got messed up, on July 19th, 2007 Gonzalez filed in a Texas state court for the right to appeal. The courts denied his appeal on November 21, 2007.
      - So because of that, on January 24th, 2008, he filed another petition to appeal in the U.S District Court for the Northern DIstrict of Texas and now here he is trying to get his case heard for his right to appeal.

    3. Summary of the Arguments before the SCOTUS

      - Basically Gonzalez argues that if the Supreme Courts sides with the state courts, the time for petitioners will be running out before they legally get the right to actually appeal which is unacceptable and unjust. Also he argued that the courts denied his petition for appeal but  it took them a year to actually finalized his conviction.  With being said there is no way he could have filed for an appeal if they hadn't even finalized his sentence.

    4. Predictions on the outcome
      - I think that because they denied his claim based on a stupid technicality that he just might be granted the appeal on top of which the timing issue makes no sense the way it was handled so he's bound to get the appeal granted.

      Citations
      "Gonzalez v. Thaler | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law." The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law | A Multimedia Archive of the Supreme Court of the United States. 03 Nov. 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.

      Shay, Giovanna. "Argument Preview: Another Technical AEDPA Case Implicating State Postconviction and Counsel." SCOTUSblog. 26 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011.

      Shay, Giovanna. "Gonzalez v. Thaler: Justices Focus on COA Issue." SCOTUSblog. 03 Nov. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. 

Missouri v. Frye

Posted by Lamaya Mapp in American Government - Laufenberg on

Missouri v. Frye
Case Issue: Can a criminal defendant who was convicted after a jury trial later argue that his lawyer was inadequate because he failed to tell him that prosecutors had offered a deal to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence? And, if so, what should courts do to correct the lawyer's error?

What happened exactly?
A defense attorney failed to inform his client, Galin Edward Frye, who had been charged with repeatedly driving while his license was revoked, of a plea offer by the prosecution. After the offer by the prosecutors expired, Frye was arrested for the fifth time then later entered a guilty plea without having the option of the plea offer and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Problems:
The lawyer didn’t present the offer to the criminal defendant (Frye) therefore has violated the criminal defendant’s constitutional rights. The sixth amendment gives the criminal defendant the right to plead guilty if you choose too. In other words, you have a right to a fair trial. The amendment relates to the case because the counsel’s failure to communicate the plea offer prior to its expiration resulted in Frye not being able to plead guilty. During this seating, Attorney General Koster will advocate the law-enforcement position that Mr. Frye’s conviction should stand, and he should not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

Missouri argues that Frye’s request gives attorneys the opportunity to strategically use plea offers as insurance policies against trial results that aren’t unpredictable. Missouri assures that, an attorney can allow a plea offer to expire without communicating it to the defendant, which means the lawyer wants the defendant has to stand trial hoping for a lighter sentence.  

Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court has to decided whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair trail and having effective assistance of counsel protects the criminal defendant whose attorney has not communicated the available plea bargain options,

Respondent Frye argues that his counsel’s failure to inform him of his plea offer was unreasonable and it prejudiced him. However, the State of Missouri maintains that Frye fails the prejudice requirements because prejudice requires a showing that, in the absence of attorney error, Frye would have pled not guilty and gone to trial.

Connection/Relation to other cases:
Missouri v. Frye case is connected to Lafler v. Cooper’s case, the only difference between the two cases is that the Lafler v. Cooper’s case criminal defendant decided to ignore the lawyer’s offer by pleading guilty, got a harsher sentence, and now wants to have privilege of that offer, which was admitting to the crime for a lighter sentence. Missouri v. Frye case criminal defendant was not notified of the deal the prosecutors offered, received a harsher sentence and now wants an opportunity to gain the right his lawyer failed to notify him of.

HILL v. LOCKHART

William Lloyd Hill pleaded guilty in the Arkansas trial court to charges of first-degree murder and theft of property. More than two years later he found out that his court-appointed attorney had failed to advise him that, as a second offender, he was required to serve one-half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

My Opinion

It’s hard to say what exactly side I am on. I believe it was unfair and unjust to Frye because this situation validated his constitutional rights. He had a right to a fair trial, therefore I believe something should be done in his favor. I’m confused by Missouri’s side of defense because they are saying there needs to be proof that Frye would have pled not guilty if his lawyer had not made an error, which is assuming.  I don’t believe you can base anything of a assumption, but most likely it isn’t an assumption minding that Frye has been arresting for this crime numerous of times.  Also, the government is not responsible for any errors that were made by an lawyer.




No decision was made as of November 2, 2011. Many of the arguments are resorting back to the Hill v. Lockhart case.

SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

Posted by Johniera McClain in American Government - Laufenberg on

Johniera McClain

American Government

B band

10/13/11

           

                                    SCOTUS Case: Howes v. Fields

 

Suspects are entitled to Miranda Warnings when they are being questioned about a crime while they are in custody. Was Randall Fields indeed custody when it was not clear that the police officer gave out an Miranda Warning to Fields?

 

            The Miranda Rights refer to the some of the rights that are contained in the Fifth Amendment in the Constitution. As in The Fifth Amendment it states: “Miranda v. Arizona (1966) was a landmark US Supreme Court case. Ernesto Miranda had signed a statement confessing to a crime, but he did not know he had an absolute right to remain silent and not talk to the police, as guaranteed to him by the Constitution, and the police did not inform him of his constitutional right before asking him questions and then having him sign a written confession. His conviction was based entirely on the confession he signed, and not on any independent evidence in the state's possession.”

 

            Fields convicted of several accounts of sexual behavior with a minor that had been affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which upheld the admission of the defendant's’ self incriminating statements that was told to the police officers at the prison while he was serving time for another reason.


            The Sixth Circuit affirmed a districts court’s grant of federal habeas relief on the ground that Fields was in custody when in questioned and that the statements that were said should have been suppressed due to the failure of the officer complying with the Miranda before interrogating Fields.

 
            People on the behalf of the Petitioner Ms. Carol Howes questioned why a prisoner who was mandated to leave his cell to go to another building to answer questions about another crime should not be considered in custody.

 

            Personal belief, is that the petitioner of the case will be what is going to come out of this. Randall Fields was incarcerated at the time due to unrelated reasoning of the circumstance in which he was questioned. Although, why wouldn’t Fields think that he was under the Miranda Custody due to the fact that he was already in the presence of a police officer questioning him? It could go somewhere else though because according to Fields he was under the impression that he was allowed to leave if and when he so chooses and also he was properly given his Miranda warning when by Constitution and particular the Fifth Amendment he was lawfully by right had to have that given to him. It shall be interesting as it all unfolds.

 

​

SCOTUS Case: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

Posted by Briana Stroman in American Government - Laufenberg on

The question of this case is, if ministerial exception applies not only to ministers, but teachers that teach at a religious school.

Cheryl Perich had filed a lawsuit against the church and the school for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. She was fired after she became sick in 2004. After a few months, she felt better and was able to work. But when the school urged her to resign, she refused to. So, they fired her.

The representatives believed that ministerial exception, which is under the first amendment in the Constitution, should apply in their case. Ministerial exception is basically gives religions certain rights to control employment matters without the courts interfering.

The funny thing about this case is that, Perich was not a minister. She was offered to be one, but she wasn’t. Also, she wasn’t teaching in a religious nature.

My original thoughts before the case was that, ministerial exception probably wouldn't matter, because as I have read that Perich was not a minister. So, I believed that it wouldn't count towards her. And I also thought that she wasn't hired by the church. And what it turns out to be, ministerial exception didn't apply at all.

SCOTUS Case 09-958: Douglas vs. Indp. Living Center of California

Posted by Sean Moss in American Government - Laufenberg on

The state of California made cuts to many medical facilities and doctors due to their lack of money. This is seemingly allowed in the Medicaid Act, section 30(A). In three different cases the state was sued, one being the Independent Living Center of Southern California. They each won their cases, stating that if the cuts in funding went through then the quality of their services would also suffer and not meet up with the standards of the Medicaid Act. However the Director of Heath Care Services has brought the case to the Supreme Court.


In the Case: California Director Toby Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Petitioner Schwartz claims that the 30(A) clause of the Medicaid Act - A Spending clause that says services are paid by the state with recognition to the economic stability of the state itself - is too genaral and does not allow a single service to enforce the Act when finances are cut due to the state’s own recession. Basically saying 30(A) is not enforcible and wants there to be a amendment that allows private services to sue and claim the appropriate reimbursement for their work.

Petitioner Kneedler disagrees saying that Medicaid is an agreement between the Federal Government and the States. Not the private facilities within the states. Schwarts and the other hundreds of thousands of doctors shouldn’t be able to sue becuase it would cause problems across the state when hundreds of judges can make different judgements for each similar case. That would be unfair. Yet he does agree that 30(A) is not complete.


The question is: Who has the right and authority to enforce 30(A) of the Medicaid Act since Congress cannot? The Federal Government or the State?

I perceive that the Federal Government will have to set up another department solely for looking over the Medicaid act and the issues that come along with it like this case and hundreds before it since the Act was set in 1986.
RSS

AMGOV-003

Term
2011-12.S1

Blog Tags

See all See less

Teacher