Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431 (1984) Essays - Searches And Seizures

Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431 (1984) Essays - Searches And Seizures Nix v. Williams 467 U.S. 431 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) Nix v. Williams No. 82-1651 Argued January 18, 1984 Decided June 11, 1984 467 U.S. 431 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Facts Robert Allen Williams was arrested for the murder of 10 year old Pamela Powers which occurred on December 24 1968. Williams disposed of the body on a gravel road in Mitchellville Iowa. Law enforcement from the state of Iowa and over 200 volunteers conducted a search in the area of Mitchellville due to finding articles of clothing nearby. On the ride from Davenport to Des Moines Williams made statements to the police without an attorney present due to conversation that was initiated by officers. The statements made led them to find the child lying in a culvert. After the child was found he was arrested and read his Miranda rights. It was found that the statements given by Williams were obtained unlawfully and were not allowed to be presented during the trial, however photos, medical and chemical evidence was allowed. It was argued in court that even if Williams had not made the statements that led to the discovery the child would have been found due to the search of the volunteers wit h evidence that could still be used to convict. Procedural History First trial Williams was indicted for the murder of Pamela Powers in 1969. In the first trial the defense argued that the police interrogated Williams on the ride from Davenport to Des Moines hoping to get information about the girl. Williams had at that time retained counsel and the defense moved to suppress the statements due to unlawful interrogation and to the defendant?s right to counsel. The prosecution argued that the discovery was inevitable due to the search pattern and location of the volunteers. The motion for the defense was denied and Williams was found guilty of first degree murder in 1970. Williams appealed his conviction and it was affirmed however, the second appeal to the Iowa Court of Appeals was reversed. Williams? attorneys filed for Habeas Corpus and it was granted. The courts affirmed and Certiorari was granted. Second trial In 1977 Williams second trial commenced, however, the prosecution did not offer the statements made by Williams to the police. Prosecutors offered into evidence the body of the girl as if the defendant never made the statements. Williams was again found guilty of first degree murder. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction stating that the police did not act in bad faith when they questioned Williams on the ride. The high court also found that the body would have been inevitably found during the search. The lower court?s decision was reversed based on the fact that they had not proven the police were acting in bad faith. In 1983 Habeas Corpus and Certiorari were again granted. Legal Issues The legal issue here is whether the evidence that resulted in the arrest should be excluded from trial due to the improper and unlawful interrogation of police officers. Did the comments of the officers as to the ?Christian burial? in effect cause and unlawful interrogation and did that violate the defendant?s right to counsel. Is there an inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule? Decision of the Court Held. The fact that the body and or evidence would have been discovered within a short time period of the search by volunteers the doctrine of inevitable discovery applies. The method of which the evidence was discovered becomes irrelevant and is still allowed against the defendant. Dissent. Justice Brennan dissented, inevitable discovery relies heavily on a hypothetical scenario that may or may not produce the evidence. Therefore since the evidence was not discovered by legal means it remains unconstitutionally obtained. Concurrence. Justices Stevens and White Concurred, maintaining the same holding. Legal Analysis In Nix v. Williams the United States Supreme Court upheld William?s conviction due to the inevitable discovery doctrine. In this instance, the exclusionary rule -the termination of evidence due to the fraudulent nature of which it was obtained-did not apply to this case due to the fact that the child?s body was entered in and viewed as evidence. It was also found that the body and or evidence would have been

Aircraft Warfare in WWI

Aircraft Warfare in WWI During the first World War,  the industrialization of the aircraft industry became entrenched as a vital piece of the modern war machine. Although it was just shy of two decades after the first airplane  was flown in the United States in 1903, by the time the WWI broke out, the military already had plans for these new means of warfare. In the years leading up to World War One, military aviation was sponsored by powerful people in government and business, and by 1909 both France and Germany had military air branches with a focus on reconnaissance and bombing. During the war, the belligerents quickly took to the air to gain an advantage. Pilots were initially sent up on missions to photograph enemy bases and troop movements so war strategists could plan their next moves, but as pilots began shooting at one another, the idea of aerial combat emerged as a new means of warfare that would someday evolve into the drone-strike technology we have today. The Invention of Aerial Combat The biggest leap forward in early aerial combat came when Frenchman Roland Garros attached a machine gun to his plane, making an attempt to synchronize with the propeller and use metal bands to deflect bullets from this vital piece of machinery. After a brief period of aerial dominance, Garros crashed and the Germans were able to study his craft. Dutchman Anthony Fokker, who was working for the Germans, then created interrupter gear to allow a machine gun to be safely shot and miss the propeller. Fierce aerial combat with dedicated fighter planes then followed. The cult of the air ace and their tally of kills was close behind; it was used by British, French, and German media to inspire their nations and none were more famous than Manfred von Richthofen, better known as the Red Baron  because of the color of his plane. Plane technology, pilot training, and aerial combat techniques all developed rapidly during the first parts of World War One, with advantage switching back and forth with each new development. Battle formation developed by around 1918, when there could be more than a hundred planes all working on the same attack plan. The Effects of the War Training was just as deadly as flying; over half of the Royal Flying Corps casualties occurred in training and, as a result, the air arm had become a recognized and highly distinguished part of the military. However, neither side ever achieved total air superiority for very long though the Germans briefly managed to cover their small base at  Verdun  in 1916 with a dominant air cover. By 1918, aerial warfare had become so important that there were thousands of planes crewed and supported by hundreds of thousands of people, all produced by a massive industry. Despite the belief- then and now- that this war was fought by individuals daring to fly for either side, aerial warfare was really one of attrition instead of victory. The effect of aircraft on the outcome of the war was indirect. They didn’t achieve victories but were invaluable in supporting infantry and artillery. Despite the evidence to the contrary, people left the war assuming that the aerial bombardment of civilians could destroy morale and end a war sooner. The German bombing of Britain- via zeppelin in 1915- failed to have any effect and the war continued anyway. Still, this belief persisted into WWII where both sides terror-bombed civilians in order to try to force a surrender.