The Pros And Cons Of The Supreme Court System
When acknowledging case at the Supreme Court level it must be a case worth the argument to continue it. The Supreme Court is the highest court that a case can reach and doesn’t give the decision of the case but gives an opinion on what they believe is right and the lower court from which it came from decides what happens to the case. The Supreme Court deals with the highest level of cases and is the only court listed in the constitution (Federal Court Concepts). The Supreme Court is known for decisions in landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka which have helped shaped how America is today (Federal Court Concepts). The Warren court system was from
…show more content…
When this Court, years ago, sustained an application of West Virginia's habitual criminal law, it said: "Full opportunity was accorded to the prisoner to meet the allegation of former conviction. Plainly, the statute contemplated a valid conviction which had not been set aside or the consequences of which had not been removed by absolute pardon. No question as to this can be raised here, for the prisoner in no way sought to contest the validity or unimpaired character of the former judgments, but pleaded that he was not the person who had thus been convicted. On this issue he had due hearing before a jury." Graham v. West Virginia ( Findlaw’s ). So these four believed that Oyler should have the time to explain his side of what happened but Oyler didn't say anything and didn't speak up at his hearing but said that he was the one who did commit the crime and same for Crabtree so they are denied from a hearing before a jury because that admitted to committing the crime so it is the law that they be sentenced to life in prison.
The final decision was that the law written in West Virginia was constitutional and that Oyler is sentenced to life because it clearly states that if you say nothing expect that you didn't commit he crime you must be heard in front of a jury but Oyler and Crabtree both admitted to committing the crime so they are both sentenced to life in prison (Oyez). People must say that they didn't commit the crime in order to have a hearing and if they don't they will not be heard and sentenced to jail for
When this Court, years ago, sustained an application of West Virginia's habitual criminal law, it said: "Full opportunity was accorded to the prisoner to meet the allegation of former conviction. Plainly, the statute contemplated a valid conviction which had not been set aside or the consequences of which had not been removed by absolute pardon. No question as to this can be raised here, for the prisoner in no way sought to contest the validity or unimpaired character of the former judgments, but pleaded that he was not the person who had thus been convicted. On this issue he had due hearing before a jury." Graham v. West Virginia ( Findlaw’s ). So these four believed that Oyler should have the time to explain his side of what happened but Oyler didn't say anything and didn't speak up at his hearing but said that he was the one who did commit the crime and same for Crabtree so they are denied from a hearing before a jury because that admitted to committing the crime so it is the law that they be sentenced to life in prison.
The final decision was that the law written in West Virginia was constitutional and that Oyler is sentenced to life because it clearly states that if you say nothing expect that you didn't commit he crime you must be heard in front of a jury but Oyler and Crabtree both admitted to committing the crime so they are both sentenced to life in prison (Oyez). People must say that they didn't commit the crime in order to have a hearing and if they don't they will not be heard and sentenced to jail for