• Uncategorized

QuestionOne Inthe United States v.Windsor, 2013, it washeld that the federal government is obliged to provide benefits tosame-sex-legally married couples. Edith Windsor was entered into amarital agreement with her late spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, who died in2009.The two resided in Toronto in 2007and were recognized by thestate law of New York. After his demise, Thea left his estate to herspouse. The government imposed a tax of $ 363,000 on the estatequoting that the federal law did not recognize the marriage. Basingthe argument on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) enacted in 1996,the state quoted that if the wedding were recognized, Clara’sestate would have qualified for a marital tax exemption. The Actstipulates that the words’ Spouse’ and ‘Marriage’ representslegal unions between a woman and man (The United States v. Windsor,2013). However, since 1996, some stateshad authorized same-sex unions indicating that the DOMA defied to theFifth Amendment that calls for equal rights. Windsor filed a suit tochallenge the decree in November 2009 at the District Court. OnFebruary 2011, the Attorney General and the President withdrew theirsupport for the Act. After the Bipartisan Legal Advisory group fileda petition to support the Act, the District Court approved Windsor’ssuit claiming that DOMA was unconstitutional (The United States v.Windsor, 2013).In 2013, the Bipartisan LegalAdvisory group forwarded the case to the U.S court of appeal. Thecourt of appeal was the appropriate jurisdiction for the case as itentailed a conflict between state and federal laws. The court plays acrucial role in determining whether the trial courts apply the lawappropriately. The court, on a five to four majority, agreed thatDOMA was unconstitutional. It observed that that states are obligedto define marriage relationships, and the Act was against statesauthority. Specifically, it denied same-sex partners the rightsenjoyed by other legally united couples under the state jurisdiction(The United States v. Windsor, 2013). QuestionTwo InUnited States v. MilynPierce, 2014, the courtsentenced Pierce after pleading guilty to the charges. On May 10,2014, the police in Montgomery County, Texas arrested Pierce andcharged her with the possession of Methamphetamine which was acontrolled substance. Consequently, on June 5, 2014, the accused pledguilty of the offense in the Montgomery County Criminal DistrictCourt. The institution sentenced her to six months in jail (Possley,2015). Later in October 2014, theDistrict’s Attorney informed Milyn’s lawyer that laboratory testsrevealed that the substances retrieved from the client testednegative for Methamphetamine. The prosecutors later joined thedefendant`s side and requested for her release leading to the courtwithdrawing the sentence (Possley, 2015). Experts observe that althoughreleased, the defendant had served 90% of the undeserved sentenceafter being incarcerated for five months. was not servedsince the jury made an early decision ignoring the need to conductlab tests and ascertain the objectivity of the claims (Possley,2015).QuestionThree InMichael W. Morton v Stateof Texas, the court heldthat Michael beat his wife to death during the morning hours. Thejury found him guilty of murder and punished him with a lifeincarceration and a $ 55,000 fine. Michael had just celebrated hisbirthday in a restaurant with his 31-year-old fiancée andthree-year-old son. The following morning, he left for work andplaced a note on the bathroom expressing his disappointment after hisfiancée declined to have sex with him the previous night. However,the note ended with the words, “I love you.” His fiancée’sbody appeared to have been bludgeoned to death with a wooden tool.Morton’s son Eric described the incident and explained that his dadwas not at home (The National Registry of Exonerations, 2012). The prosecution drew conclusionfrom the semen found on the bed and concluded that Morton masturbatedon his wife after killing her. However, there was no witness orphysical evidence tying Morton to the crime. The Court sentenced himto life. After conviction, the Court rejected Morton’s appeal and aselective DNA conducted afterwards still associated him with themurder. Later in June 2011, further DNA test on a bandana found atthe scene revealed the presence of a male DNA belonging to MarkNorwood. Unlike Morton, Mark was a felon in California, and he wasliving in Texas during the time of the murder (The National Registryof Exonerations, 2012). Further litigation revealed thatNorwood had left pubic hair in another murder case similar to that ofChristine. The court officially vindicated Morton on December 19,2011, after releasing him on October 4ththe same year. It further revealed that the Williamson Districtprosecutor, Mr. Ken Anderson, was liable to criminal contempt afterfailing to turn over evidence proving Morton’s innocence. Andersonresigned from his position in September 2013 and the Court sentencedhim to 10 days incarceration for concealing evidence that resulted inMorton’s incarceration. Morton had spent approximately 8,995 daysin jail while Anderson spent ten days for concealing evidence (TheNational Registry of Exonerations, 2012).In this case, was notserved since the evidence appeared so obvious that Morton wasinnocent. The sentences between Morton and Ken Andersen are notcomparable. As the prosecutor, Ken ought to have served as an exampleto other prosecutors being thorough with substantial evidence in acriminal case.References

UnitedStates v. Windsor.(2013). United StatesSupreme Court-570.Chicago-KentCollege of Law at Illinois.Retrieved on August 10, 2016 fromhttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2012/12-307

The NationalRegistry of Exonerations,(2012, June).MichaelMorton. Retrieved onAugust 10, 2016fromhttps://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3834

Possley,M. (2015, January 8). Milyn Pierce. TheNational Registry of Exonerations. Retrievedon August 10, 2016fromhttp://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4622

Close Menu