HOME
ABOUT THE JAILHOUSE LAWYER
Natural Cures Website They Don't Want You To Know About
Freedom
History of Corporate Rule  
Netwars  
Ron Paul Speaks Out
Population Control Agenda
 
Gibson Guitars Raid Story  
Rights of the Accused
Bookshelf
Liberty
Building Permits
Waco
Caselaw Collection
ProjectGreenLife
Habeas Corpus
Legal Research
Justice
Legal Quotes
More Quotes
Reality Zone
Rights
Jurisdiction  
Parens Patriae  
Free
"Person"  
State Citizenship
Blog
Jailhouse Lawyer - defined
Tribute to Gerry Spence
Andrew Meyer Story
Links
Site Awards
Notice To Public Servants
Marbury v. Madison
Pro Se Litigation
Jurisdictionary - HOW TO WIN ... Without a Lawyer!
The Battle For Liberty
The Abraham Cherrix Story
Liberty Award
Are We Doomed to be a Police State?
Best Free Autosurf Programs
Spiritual Anthology
The Drug Story
Jordan Page
Your Rights: Use 'Em or Lose 'Em
THE JAILHOUSE LAWYER'S
CASELAW COLLECTION
EX PARTE MILLIGAN, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States (according to the Court) only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during wartime.
The court also ruled that so long as local civilian courts are open, citizens may not be tried by military tribunals. It further observed that during the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, citizens may only be held without charges: not tried, and certainly not executed by military tribunals. After all, the writ of habeas corpus is not the right itself, but merely the ability to issue orders demanding the right's enforcement.
BERGER v. UNITED STATES, 295 U.S. 78 (1935)
The 1935 landmark case on what consistutes prosecutorial misconduct, its poetic language still cited as the standard by which the ethics of prosecutors (federal, state and local) are judged.
UNITED STATES v. PELTIER, 422 U.S. 531 (1975)
This case deals with the imperative of judicial integrity. In this case it was decided that; "Under our Constitution no court, state or federal, may serve as an accomplice in the willful transgression of `the Laws of the United States,' laws by which `the Judges in every State [are] bound . . . .'"
Reversible Errors
The cases listed are those in which a criminal defendant received relief from an United States Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON, No. 02-9410. Argued November 10, 2003--Decided March 8, 2004
Held: The State�s use of Sylvia�s statement violated the Confrontation Clause because, where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. Pp. 5�33.
MISSOURI v. SEIBERT, No. 02-1371. Argued December 9, 2003--Decided June 28, 2004
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, reaffirmed Miranda, holding that Miranda's constitutional character prevailed against a federal statute that sought to restore the old regime of giving no warnings and litigating most statements' voluntariness. The technique of interrogating in successive, unwarned and warned phases raises a new challenge to Miranda.
[The above decision brings to light law enforcement attempts to circumvent the constitutional requirements of Miranda. - TJL]
 
 
Email: *jailhouselawyer@lycos.com*
"Those who fail to take the time to be healthy
will ultimately have to take the time to be sick."
~ Dr. James Chappell
"THE REALITY ZONE"

My StumbleUpon Page