Duncan v. Louisiana Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) asked the Supreme Court to determine whether a state could deny someone the right to a trial by jury. The Supreme Court found that an individual charged with a serious criminal offense is guaranteed a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. Fast Facts: Duncan v. Louisiana Case Argued: January 17, 1968Decision Issued:  May 20, 1968Petitioner: Gary DuncanRespondent:   State of LouisianaKey Questions: Was the State of Louisiana obligated to provide a trial by jury in a criminal case such as Duncans for assault?Majority Decision: Justices Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Fortas, and MarshallDissenting: Justices Harlan and StewartRuling: The court found that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was fundamental to the American scheme of justice, and that states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials. Facts of the Case In 1966, Gary Duncan was driving down the Highway 23 in Louisiana when he saw a group of young men at the side of the road. When he slowed his car, he recognized that two members of the group were his cousins, who had just transferred to an all-white school. Worried about the rate of racial incidents at the school and the fact that the group of boys consisted of four white boys and two black boys, Duncan stopped his car. He encouraged his cousins to disengage by getting in the car with him. Before getting back in the car himself, a brief altercation occurred. At trial, the white boys testified that Duncan had slapped one of them on the elbow. Duncan and his cousins testified that Duncan had not slapped the boy, but rather had touched him. Duncan requested a jury trial and was refused. At the time, Louisiana only allowed jury trials for charges which could result in capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor. The trial judge convicted Duncan of simple  battery, a misdemeanor in the state of Louisiana, sentencing him to 60 days in jail and a $150 fine. Duncan then turned to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review his case. He argued that denying him a jury trial when he faced up to two years in prison violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Constitutional Issues Can a state deny someone a jury trial when they face criminal charges? The Arguments Attorneys for the State of Louisiana argued that the U.S. Constitution did not force states to provide jury trials in any criminal case. Louisiana relied on several cases, including Maxwell v. Dow and Snyder v. Massachusetts, to show that the Bill of Rights, particularly the Sixth Amendment, should not apply to the states. If the Sixth Amendment were to apply, it would cast doubt on trials conducted without juries. It would also not apply to Duncans case. He was sentenced to 60 days in jail and a monetary fine. His case does not meet the standard for a serious criminal offense, according to the state. Attorneys on behalf of Duncan argued that the state violated Duncans Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects individuals from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, and property, ensures the right to a trial by jury. Like many other elements of the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Sixth Amendment to the states. When Louisiana denied Duncan a jury trial, it violated his fundamental right. Majority Opinion Justice Byron White delivered the 7-2 decision. According to the court, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury to the states. As a result, Louisiana violated Duncans Sixth Amendment right when the state refused to give him a proper jury trial. Justice White wrote: Our conclusion is that, in the American States, as in the federal judicial system, a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants.   The decision asserted that not every criminal offense is serious enough to require a jury trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court made it clear that petty offenses did not require a trial by jury, upholding the traditional common law practice of using a bench trial to adjudicate petty offenses. The Justices reasoned that there was no substantial evidence that the Framers of the Constitution aimed to ensure the right to a trial by jury for less serious charges. In order to separate a serious offense from a petty offense, the court looked to District of Columbia v. Clawans (1937). In that case, the court used objective criteria and focused on the existing laws and practices in federal courts to determine whether a petty offense required a jury trial. In Duncan v. Louisiana, the majority evaluated standards in the federal courts, state courts, and 18th-century American legal practices to determine that a crime punishable by up to two years in prison could not be called a petty offense. Dissenting Opinion Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, joined by Justice Potter Stewart. The dissenters reasoned that states should be allowed to set their own jury trial standards, unimpeded by the Court but constitutionally fair. Justice Harlan encouraged the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment requires fairness through constitutionality rather than uniformity. States, he argued, should be allowed to individually conform their courtroom procedures to the Constitution. Impact Duncan v. Louisiana incorporated the right to a trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment, guaranteeing it as a fundamental right. Prior to this case, the application of jury trials in criminal cases differed across states. After Duncan, denying a jury trial for serious criminal charges with sentences of greater than six months would be unconstitutional. The use of jury trial waivers and civil court juries still varies between states. Sources Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617 (1937).

Effect of Delayed Recall on Serial Position Effec

Effect Of Delayed Recall on Serial Position Effects By Paul Thevathayan ABSTRACT: The purpose of this experiment was to test whether a delay before recall would affect the serial position effect. The experiment was done by getting participants to take part in a simple tests; hearing words read out, then after they are read out, recalling them and writing them down. Two of these tests took place, one without a gap before recall, and one with. The results only partly supported previous research, with both tests showing a higher number of people remembering words at the start of the list, but unlike previous research findings, the last words of the list were not remembered†¦show more content†¦Figure 2- A graph showing percentage of people that successfully recalled each word in Test 1. The graph shows a defined spike in the beginning, however the words at the end do not seem much higher than that which is in the middle. DISCUSSION The hypothesis that in Experiment 1, words at the beginning and end of a list would be better remembered while in Experiment 2, words at the beginning would be better remembered, was partially rejected, while still being partially true. The hypothesis that a delay would in fact make a difference was supported. In both tests, words in the first third seemed to be remembered by significantly more of the participants. However despite the predictions, words in the last third of experiment 1 seemed to be not significantly more than words in the middle third. experiment2 did seem to fit with the hypothesis, as the words at the start seemed to be higher than the rest, but there was a absurdity on word 16, â€Å"ocean,† which was recalled 7 out of the 9 times. Apart from this, experiment 2 seemed to support the hypothesis. The results show that although the primacy effect was apparent in the results of both tests, the recency effect was not observed in Test 2(as predicted) and strangely not observable in Test 1 either. The reason for this may be the presence of uncontrolled external stimuli caused between the participants listening time andShow MoreRelatedMedicare Policy Analysis447966 Words   |  1792 Pages(A) in the case of a State in which a quali- 4 fied high-risk pool (as defined under section 5 2744(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act) 6 was in effect as of July 1, 2009, the Secretary 7 shall require the State make a maintenance of 8 effort payment each year that the high-risk pool 9 is in effect equal to an amount not less than the 10 amount of all sources of funding for high-risk 11 pool coverage made by that State in the year 12 ending July

Commercialization of Health Care Good or Bad Free Essays

Commercialisation in health care basically means setting up private owned hospitals which in turn are the ones set on the business ethics of profit. But this does not mean that there is no proper treatment. Its true that the charges are more and in India where there are so many poor people cannot afford such high charges. We will write a custom essay sample on Commercialization of Health Care: Good or Bad? or any similar topic only for you Order Now The govt hospitals draw a lot of people as because the charges are reasonably low and has some fine experienced doctors and not only that these hospitals cover many rural parts too. But when we compare the facilities, hygenic conditions and hospitality then certainly private hospitals are ahead. People from round the globe are choosing India as there medical destination not because of above facilities mentioned but because they are chaeper than other commercialised hospitals across the world. For an instance, heart bypass surgery will cost around 6500$ in India whereas it will cost around 30000$ in the US. The thing is that in a country like ours where there are poor and rich people side by side, there should also be govt and commercialised hospitals sisde by side with the ultimate goal of proper treatment of patients. In a way good for people who are under the bracket of company insurance. But not effective for those who cannot afford basic medical treatment due to ever increasing costs. People below the poverty line cannot afford to go to a private doctor. Going to a private hospital is beyond their thoughts. How to cite Commercialization of Health Care: Good or Bad?, Papers

Day 26 free essay sample

Day26, the self-titled debut album from the winners of MTV’s hit TV show â€Å"Making the Band 4† is awesome! Since I love it so much, let’s go track by track. It starts off with â€Å"I’m the Reason,† an up-tempo track that features all 5 members of the group, Willie on the first verse and Robert on the second. The song is about the fact that when they take their girlfriends out to all of these great places, the girl would act as if she did this herself and not know that he did it for her. The next song is another up-tempo track and their debut single called â€Å"Got Me Going† and it’s about their feelings for a girl. The song was produced by Mario Winans, written by super producer Bryan Michael Cox and also features Diddy. The third song is called â€Å"In My Bed.† This is a mid-tempo song. We will write a custom essay sample on Day 26 or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The chorus in the song features the guys telling their girl â€Å"Don’t Be Shy† and â€Å"We Got All Night.† The fourth song is entitled, â€Å"Silly Love†, it’s a mid-tempo song and they are telling their girlfriends that they’re â€Å"In a Daze† and â€Å"Blown Away† in the chorus. The fifth song is called â€Å"Come with me.† This mid-tempo song features all five members of the group and a fast-paced performance by Qwanell. The song is the basic, â€Å"meets-a-girl-at-a-club-and-you know-happens-next† kind of thing. The sixth mid-tempo, sort of live drums, track is called â€Å"Co-Star.† It again features all 5 members of the group and the song has them asking their girlfriends if they can be their co-star, what is in store for them, and telling them that they’re in â€Å"the right place, at the right time† in the chorus and hook.The seventh and one of my favorites on the entire album is ca lled â€Å"Come In,† (â€Å"My Door’s Open.†) This song was produced by â€Å"The Runners† and written by Mary Brown. The song is about how the guys see a girl in bad relationship, offer to help and ask why she’d â€Å"waste her time† in the bridge. The first verse is sung by Willie and the second verse sung by Robert, who, awesomely, reigns over the rest of the song with help from Brian, Willie and Mike! The eighth song is a Bryan Michael Cox produced track called â€Å"Are We in Together?† In the chorus, the whole group asks their girlfriends â€Å"Would They die for them† if they were â€Å"Locked Down, With No Money, Would They Hold It down for them?† This is a great song for any couple who want to move to the next level in their relationship. The ninth track is a slow, sensual song called â€Å"What It Feels Like,† featuring the entire group and a hot bridge delivered by Robert. The tenth, piano-based, track is called â€Å"Since You’ve Been Gone†. This is another basic â€Å"now-that-my-lover-has-left-me-part-of-my world-is-gone† song and the guys want to tell them that they miss them, they want to talk to them and that â€Å"they’ve changed.† The eleventh song is called â€Å"If It Wasn’t for you.† This song is about the guys telling their girls that â€Å"If It Wasn’t For† them, they’d be â€Å"Out on these streets, tryna find a way to make ends meat and would be â€Å"Serving time in prison in their own minds† in the chorus and they’d â€Å"Probably wouldn’t know what they know now and â€Å"Probably would be where they are now† in the bridge. The first verse is sung by Willie and the second is sung by Robert again. The entire group contributes once more. This is another great song to listen to if you’re a fan of Qwanell, who sings in falsetto near the end of the song where the group takes turns vocalizing! The final song (If you bought the album at â€Å"Wal-Mart† or â€Å"Target†) is another slow and sensual song called â€Å"Don’t Fight the Feeling.† This song only has Willie, Brian, Mike and Robert on vocals. Sorry Q fans! Willie sings the first verse; Mike sings the second, Robert sings the chorus/bridge and Brian ad-libs when the chorus is sung for the last time. Like I mentioned before, if you didn’t buy the album at â€Å"Wal-Mart† or â€Å"Target,† then that was the end of the review for you, but if you did, read this.: The first bonus track is called â€Å"Aint Going† and it’s a collaboration between Day26 and season 3 â€Å"MTB† winners Danity Kane! This song’s chorus has the two groups telling the listener that â€Å"This Aint Nothing like You’ve Heard Before† and this is their chance to â€Å"make you move.† The beat is up-tempo and it’s a reminder to that listener that they will be â€Å"Right There, Right There.† Last, but not least, the final bonus track is the first studio song that the â€Å"MTB4† winners made together! That’s right. Sing it with me ladies, â€Å"Don’t Wanna Play No Games, I want you ex†¦Ã¢â‚¬  I can’t hear you! Willie sings the first verse, Brian sings the hook the firsttime, Willie sings the second verse, Robert sings the hook, Brian and Q sing the bridge, Mike sing the hook and the chorus is sung twice while Q ad-libs!This is a great album. If you’re an â€Å"MTB4† fan or have a friend that is one ,I beg you to go buy it!. Trust me; it’s so good that I listen to it everyday. These boys can really blow; they’re not a group of 5 guys who use the auto-tune like T-Pain does! I have a feeling that they will be around for a very, very, VERY, long time.