Natalie Sanchez

My case was Howes v. Fields. It dealer with a young man, Randel Lee Fields, who was imprisoned for a crime that he admitted to have committed. "How could he have ratted himself out like that?" you might be asking yourself. The answer is that he was not read his miranda rights before interrogation. Here's the whole story.  Fields was under custody for disorderly conduct in Lenawee County Sheriff’s Department. On December 23, 2001, Field was escorted form his cell to a conference room by a police guard without handcuffs. Once there, officers Deputy David Batterson and Deputy Dale Sharp began to question him. Fields continued to tell the guards that he did not want to speak with them at that moment, but the guards continued to question him. They told Fields that he was welcome to leave if he wanted. In the end, Field was interrogated for seven hours and told the officers about his sexual relations with a minor. During those seven hours of interrogation, Fields was not read his miranda rights. 

For those of you who do not know, miranda rights are the set of entitlements that must be read to someone before are incarcerated or before are taken into an interrogation. These rights state, “You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.”  The Miranda rights are connected to the constitution in that they give the suspect a chance to clear his or her name by pleading the fifth ammendment (or, in other words, keeping their mouths shut). Because he was not read his miranda warning, Fields told the police officers what he did, hence, the Michigan court of appeals charged him with two counts of third degree sexual conduct and was given a term of ten to fifteen years in prison. The Questions in hand are as follows: Was Field's second sentence constitutional? Was the Michigan Court of Appeal’s decision against or in agreement with federal law? More importantly, "Does federal law automatically require Miranda warnings before questioning jail or prison inmates about issues unrelated to the cases for which they were incarcerated?" This is what congress was debating on October 4, 2011. They wanted to determine whether or not miranda rights should be read to prisoners even when they are being interrogated about a different crime than the one that got them in jail in the first place. 

Now there are two ways to look at this case. You could either justify Field's second jail sentence or deem it unlawful. The side that the Michigan Court of Appeals took was the one that justified Field's second sentence. They argue that 1. Field was under custody for another crime, 2. he was not wearing handcuffs when he was interrogated by the officers, 3. he was interrogated in a conference room, and 4. he was told that he could leave the room whenever he wanted to. Because of these small details,the Miranda rights were not necessary for this case scenario, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The other side argues that Miranda rights were created in order to give a suspect the chance to clear his name by not speaking about his or her acts during an interrogation. They argue that the person must be in custody in order to receive their miranda warning; Fields was in custody. Fields also stated that he was treated harshly during the impromptu interrogation, as one of the deputies used intimidation to get him to talk about his offense. The people who think that Field was treated unjustly argue that 1. a suspect in custody should be read their miranda rights, as anything they say can be used against them, 2. that this should happen regardless of what crime the criminal is going to be asked about, and 3. this is the only way that the miranda warning could serve its full purpose. I think that Field's sentence is going to be lifted-his sentence will be deemed unconstitutional. 

I feel like, though he was being asked about another crime he committed, he was tricked into giving information to the officers in a very unlawful way. The fair thing would have been to read Fields his miranda rights so that he would have been given a heads up that he was going to court and that what he was going to say to the officers would be used against him. I feel like Fields was treated unfairly and that he will soon receive justice. 

Sources: 

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_680%20#

http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html

Natalie Sanchez

My case was Howes v. Fields. It dealer with a young man, Randel Lee Fields, who was imprisoned for a crime that he admitted to have committed. "How could he have ratted himself out like that?" you might be asking yourself. The answer is that he was not read his miranda rights before interrogation. Here's the whole story.  Fields was under custody for disorderly conduct in Lenawee County Sheriff’s Department. On December 23, 2001, Field was escorted form his cell to a conference room by a police guard without handcuffs. Once there, officers Deputy David Batterson and Deputy Dale Sharp began to question him. Fields continued to tell the guards that he did not want to speak with them at that moment, but the guards continued to question him. They told Fields that he was welcome to leave if he wanted. In the end, Field was interrogated for seven hours and told the officers about his sexual relations with a minor. During those seven hours of interrogation, Fields was not read his miranda rights. For those of you who do not know, miranda rights are the set of entitlements that must be read to someone before are incarcerated or before are taken into an interrogation. These rights state, “You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney during interrogation; if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you.”  These rights basically give the suspect a chance to clear his or her name by pleading the fifth (or, in other words, keeping your mouth shut). Because he was not read his miranda warning, Fields told the police officers what he did, hence, the Michigan court of appeals charged him with two counts of third degree sexual conduct and was given a term of ten to fifteen years in prison. The Questions in hand are as follows: Was Field's second sentence constitutional? Was the Michigan Court of Appeal’s decision against or in agreement with federal law? More importantly, "Does federal law automatically require Miranda warnings before questioning jail or prison inmates about issues unrelated to the cases for which they were incarcerated?" This is what congress was debating on October 4, 2011. They wanted to determine whether or not miranda rights should be read to prisoners even when they are being interrogated about a different crime than the one that got them in jail in the first place. Now there are two ways to look at this case. You could either justify Field's second jail sentence or deem it unlawful. The side that the Michigan Court of Appeals took was the one that justified Field's second sentence. They argue that 1. Field was under custody for another crime, 2. he was not wearing handcuffs when he was interrogated by the officers, 3. he was interrogated in a conference room, and 4. he was told that he could leave the room whenever he wanted to. Because of these small details,the Miranda rights were not necessary for this case scenario, according to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The other side argues that Miranda rights were created in order to give a suspect the chance to clear his name by not speaking about his or her acts during an interrogation. They argue that the person must be in custody in order to receive their miranda warning; Fields was in custody. Fields also stated that he was treated harshly during the impromptu interrogation, as one of the deputies used intimidation to get him to talk about his offense. The people who think that Field was treated unjustly argue that 1. a suspect in custody should be read their miranda rights, as anything they say can be used against them, 2. that this should happen regardless of what crime the criminal is going to be asked about, and 3. this is the only way that the miranda warning could serve its full purpose. I think that Field's sentence is going to be lifted-his sentence will be deemed unconstitutional. I feel like, though he was being asked about another crime he committed, he was tricked into giving information to the officers in a very unlawful way. The fair thing would have been to read Fields his miranda rights so that he would have been given a heads up that he was going to court and that what he was going to say to the officers would be used against him. I feel like Fields was treated unfairly and that he will soon receive justice. 

Sources: 

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_10_680%20#

http://www.mirandawarning.org/historyofmirandawarning.html

        The case I was assigned to follow was Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association. The state of California has been making cuts to the Medicaid reimbursements and the recipients and providers of Medicaid want to fight against these cuts the state is making. However, this case is not about the arguments against the state, but whether or not these people can even make arguments in the first place. The main constitutional issue in this case surrounds the Supremacy Clause, along with Ex Parte Young. The Supremacy Clause essentially establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” So, the states judges must follow laws included in these areas even in state laws conflict with them. If the states don’t follow these laws, then, under Ex Parte Young, the state can be sued. Medicaid and the right of the people to have access to this is clearly stated under the Social Security Act, so the people believe that it is well in the laws of the country for the state of California and its officials to be sued for making cuts that make it harder for some families to get access to the care they need. However, some members of the Supreme Court feel that a new look should be taken at how open the courts should be to claims that states are violating federal law.

California spends more than $41 billion a year on the Medicaid Program (Medi-Cal), and it takes up approximately 13% of the state’s budget. However, California Legislature approved reimbursements cuts in 2008 and 2009 because of the worsening financial crisis. These cuts were between 1% and 10%. So, if looked at under the Supremacy Clause, these reimbursements violated the requirements of the Medicaid law of 1965 that state payments remain “consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care” and overall sufficient for medical professionals. So, hospitals, unions, and organizations sued.

When the case of whether or not the state can even be sued in the first place reached the Supreme Court on October 3^rd, 2011, Justice Stephen G. Breyer argued that if hundreds and hundreds of lawsuits come into the Court saying that the states are not following federal law, then the federal agencies responsible for enforcing these laws will be too overwhelmed with cases to do their “business.” He was quoted as saying, “It’s a mass, in other words.” This is why the Court wants to take a new look at this process of lawsuits because they believe that there will be simply too many to handle. The lawyer for California Medicaid patients and care providers, Carter G. Phillips, argued that he was not fighting for this kind of expansion of litigation, however. He pushed that his intention was to only make sure that people had the right to fight to make sure that federal supremacy is maintained and their “life or death” benefits were safe. He also made the pint that federal courts have been hearing and deciding these cases for generations. However, the Court found merit in what Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler was saying about Medicaid being different since it was a joint enterprise managed by administrative agencies, not the courts. He also argued that he was only trying to make an exception in litigation.

The Supreme Court is not expected to make a ruling until spring of 2012 on this case and the other related cases that were also argued. However, based off of the feeling the court gave (expressed through what I read), there seems to be a good chance that the court may rule against the Medicaid patients and care-givers. They seem to be in favor of making this exception in litigation for this case, which would leave them to depend on federal officials who can only shut off federal funds entirely in this case. I kind of see this as making sense. In this time of economic turmoil and also accessibility of law to citizens, the Courts may just see countless cases like this throughout the United States. By allowed the citizens to sue, the floor will be opened to who knows how many other cases. The courts want to save as much time and energy as possible and keep the system from overflowing. So, while it is in their rights to sue the state for violating federal laws, an exception might just be made by the Supreme Court. 

Constitutional Question: In the case of Maples v. Thomas, the constitutional question being presented before the Supreme Court is "Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no cause to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state's own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner's attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default." In plain English, this is asking weather a prisoner can argue that a death sentence is unconstitutional when proper filing procedures were not followed. This is specifically relevant to the sixth and eighth amendments since they specifically involve congressional proceedings.

Facts of the Case: Cory Maples was arrested and convicted for first degree murder in Alabama. In Alabama, once someone is convicted, they are not given free council. Since he could not afford an attorney, he contacted two New York legislators who would act as his out-of-state council pro-bono. As with any out of state council in Alabama, there needed to be a local council to oversee the case on the local scale. After filing for post-conviction relief (where Maples petitioned the court to have his death penalty overturned), he request was denied. The copy of that denial was sent to the New York lawyers and the Alabama lawyer. However, both of his New York lawyers left their firm, and the ruling was returned to the county clerk. In addition, the Alabama lawyer did not convey the ruling to Maples, since he assumed the New York lawyers would have done so. After not hearing his ruling, he contacted the county clerk who sent a copy of the ruling directly to the prison (where it would be given to Maples). Unfortunately, upon receipt of said document, he noticed that the deadline for him to appeal the petition had already passed. Therefore, he wished to argue that continuing his death sentence would be unconstitutional since he was not given ample time to appeal (due to his lawyers' inability to represent Maples in this scenario).

Summary of the Arguments before the SCOTUS: In the supreme court hearing, the story was conveyed before the court by a representative of Maples to explain the ways in which his appeal deadline should have been extended in this instance (or his case be re-evaluated). Some members of the supreme court questioned whether the court should be punished by having to re-hear the case (taking up the court's valuable time). In addition, the Maples representative reiterated that Maples should not be punished for the abandonment by three responsible lawyers. However, the court did seem be particularly hesitant at the vast implications that a ruling for abandonment could bring.

Prediction: While the court did not want to have huge implications, it appears as though they will side on behalf of Maples. This will probably be done with a complex ruling explaining the numerous factors for abandonment by lawyers to be considered ineffective council (which is prohibited by the sixth amendment).

College fees are on a continuing rise. Each year, or mid-year, tuition increases are making it difficult for families to pay for their children's education. As a result some have no choice but to leave their colleges or  knowingly burry themselves in debt. Only to come out of college to pay off loans in an already damaged economy. Universities' aren't getting enough State financial support and are in turn charging more,cutting enrollment, and letting go os staff and teachers. If this stays the same only a small percentage of students will be able to afford graduating college.         
    In today's society it is difficult to be successful in life without a college education. The world needs educated people to continue to function. Without them there will be a shortage of phycisians,lawyers,teachers, and most of all students. Unless changes are made to the educational financial state that colleges are in , there will be a serious drop in qualified individuals to take certain roles in society.
    College students across the country have started to protest against these institutions that continue to raise tuition each year. Regrettably there haven't been many changes to help universities with the ever pressing issue. Eductions needs to be moved up on our nations list of priorities. Starting with a new budget for school districts and Universities all over the country. Students should be able to have a choice to  receive a form of higher learning or not. However, if nothing changes in the nations outlook on education then that option will be taken away for many.

Jason M. Davis

​In addition to the countries economic struggles, there is key aspect of the social spectrum that is currently tainting America's system, the youth. While the reasons for this is widely debated, a highly expected contributer is the current economic system. In my lobbying topic, I choose to take the side of the struggling youth in this country, who have fell victim to the incompitence of the adults who make decisions on that political stage that have effected our education.

Education reform and public education, in the role of the fight against standardized teaching, is a widely liberal approach. Liberal believes tend to favor he idea of public education, because it supports all children in the U.S. Recently, many movements have pushed towards the reform of public education because many believe that the people making decisions about the curricullum and standards of schools do not represent education in all parts of the United States. 

Many people, both liberal and consertive approach education in a more standardized way. These create specific standards for students in specific grades, which is sometimes viewed as treating students as if they are all the same. Educators around the country are pushing for reform in the system which has resulted in some political effects. On a national level, the most recent legislation has been the addition of secondary standards to the "No Child Left Behind Act" which was signed into law in 2001. These changes have been minor, but show examples of the voices of these lobbies being heard.

 

I am lobbying for a change in marital law in the city of Philadelphia. Same sex marriage is only legal in 6 states currently but Pennsylvania’s congressional representatives are not majorly in favor of making this legal in our state. Joe Sestak hopes to lobby for this as well and unseat Arlen Specter. My main motivation to lobby this topic is basically the fourteenth amendment. Although I’d be stretching the meaning slightly, I feel that disallowing same sex marriage is infringing upon the rights of American citizens. For gay couples one person might be the worker while one is the homemaker. In different sex couples this means the house person receives benefits from the other’s job. However, if same sex couples aren’t allowed to marry, the partner receives no benefits.

This isn’t protecting American citizens. Homosexuality isn’t a choice, just like race and gender aren’t choices. Why should homosexuals be treated differently because of something they cannot control? There was once a time that colored people were prosecuted but that was deemed unconstitutional. There was a time where women were treated unfairly but that as well was deemed unconstitutional. Why is this any different?

Currently there is almost 50% support in Pennsylvania for same sex marriage, which is 8 points higher from last year. Hopefully a change in representation will change perspective.