Analyze a criminal case opinion issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, 2005 or later; explain the issue(s) in the case, the holding of the case, its basis, the number of justices for and against the opinion, and whether it set precedent (i.e., new law) or merely reaffirmed long-standing constitutional values. Identify the justice who authored the opinion, and provide that justice’s ideology. You may choose any case listed below, or locate a criminal U.S. Supreme Court case, 2005 or later, to analyze. It is recommended that your post contain approximately 400 words.
Spohn, C., & Hemmens, C. (2012). Courts: A text/reader (2nd ed.). Sage.
United States Courts. (n.d.). Criminal cases (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/CriminalCases.aspx
Owens, R. J., & Wedeking, J. P. (2011). Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.Law & Society, 45(4), 1027-1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00464.x
Smith, C. E., McCall, M., & McCall, M. (2006). Criminal justice and the 2004-2005 United States Supreme Court term.The University of Memphis Review, 36(4). Retrieved from http://www.memphis.edu/law/lawreview.php
Ishmael, P. [Patrick Ishmael]. (2012, May 14). Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer debate the Constitution (Links to an external site.) [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4n8gOUzZ8I
Clark v. Arizona (Links to an external site.), 548 U.S. 735 (2006).
Davis v. United States (Links to an external site.), 131 S. Ct. 2419 (2011).
Davis v. Washington (Links to an external site.), 547 U.S. 813 (2006).
Florida v. Powell (Links to an external site.), 559 U.S. 50 (2010).
Giles v. California (Links to an external site.), 554 U.S. 353 (2008).
Graham v. Florida (Links to an external site.), 560 U.S. 48 (2010).
Greenlaw v. United States (Links to an external site.), 554 U.S. 237 (2008).
Herring v. United States (Links to an external site.), 555 U.S. 135 (2009).
Holmes v. South Carolina (Links to an external site.), 547 U.S. 319 (2006).
Hudson v. Michigan (Links to an external site.), 547 U.S. 586 (2006).
J.D.B. v. North Carolina (Links to an external site.), 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011).
Kennedy v. Louisiana (Links to an external site.), 554 U.S. 407 (2008).
Maryland v. King (Links to an external site.), 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013).
McDonald v. Chicago (Links to an external site.), 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
Missouri v. McNeely (Links to an external site.), 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).
Oregon v. Guzek (Links to an external site.), 546 U.S. 517 (2006).
Salinas v. Texas (Links to an external site.), 133 S. Ct. 2174 (2013).
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez (Links to an external site.)
United States v. Jones (Links to an external site.), 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012).
United States v. Williams (Links to an external site.), 553 U.S. 285 (2008).
Yeager v. United States (Links to an external site.), 557 U.S. 110 (2009).
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.
Read moreEach paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.
Read moreThanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.
Read moreYour email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.
Read moreBy sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.
Read more