The Hollywood Ten

One of the most infamous American events preceding the Cold War era, the Hollywood Ten were a small group of ten "good liberal" movie directors, screenplay writers and actors who were deemed guilty, not of wrongdoing, but of wrong thinking. You see, they were all members of the American Communist party at the time, and these trials all occurred during the late 40's, right as the Communist paranoia began to affect Americans. Essentially, for harboring their own beliefs as any American is free to, their civil liberties as employed Hollywood humans were revoked entirely, and even in jeopardy, from the U.S. supreme court, who refused to hear their cases, and from Congress, who cited them all for contempt. They had one of two options, however, as their trials came to light. Given a second option by the Hollywood Committee for the First Amendment, this group of politicians and film producers dug into the First Amendment and determined that it not only entailed freedom of speech, but also the right to remain silent. As such, none of the Hollywood Ten gave the courts any response when asked if they were Communists. This ability to stand steadfast did end up costing them all of their jobs, and many of them also went to prison for some time. What was truly cruel, however, was after managing to regain their jobs, they were forced to wait ten, some even 20 years before they could create or write movies without using pseudonyms or metaphors.

Not only was this incident one of the most famous American Court cases of its time, but it stands as a foundation to not only the beginning of the era of blacklisting, but also to the genuine American paranoia, and the discovery of the right to remain silent. All of these factors helped to make sure that this event would never be forgotten by anyone with power, be it those with creative powers or those with the power to attempt taking it away.

For more information on this series of trials, visit the link below:

http://law.jrank.org/pages/3012/Hollywood-Ten-Trials-1948-50.html

Manuel Noreiga

A well-known military general in the Panama National Guard, Manuel Noriega worked with the CIA for a period of 30 years, providing information on their payroll. However, it was after a period of time when the DEA indited Noreiga on drug charges, in 1989, before the CIA started to question just where Noreiga's allegiance truly lay. Not only was he suspect to sharing information with several of America's enemies, including Communist Cuba, but he was even discovered selling weapons to the Nicaraguans without disclosing this transaction to anyone in America. The final nail on the coffin came down though, when he was caught trafficking cocaine into America in the drug charges of '89. President George H.W. Bush ordered a full-scale assault on Panama, sending 25,000 troops to capture Noreiga. After capturing him successfully, Noreiga stood trial in Miami, Florida for drug trafficking, conspiracy, and racketeering. Though the judgement was a guilty verdict, Noreiga's 40 year sentence was cut down to 17 instead.

There were two interesting factors in this case that separated it from the rest. Firstly, this case in particular showcased a criminal that was issued nearly an army to bring to justice, a move that hand't been executed in quite some time. Two, this was in fact, the first America court case involving a major foreign head of government, and considering the lengths we took to get him here, I'd say the court system certainly came through to prevent anything bad from happening to our country in the long in, in terms of what could have happened if Noreiga had stayed in power.

For more info on this massive case, visit the link below:

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/noriegalinks.html

Huey P. Newton

In October 1966, along with Bobby Seale, Huey Newton co-founded the Black Panthers for the African American community's defense. Establishing a community where blacks could bear arms against the corrupt police of their times, the Black Panthers was more than a militant group designed to defend the black community. They wanted equal rights, equal opportunity to employment (in all parts of the country), amongst several other wrongs to be righted. Precisely one year later, however, in 1967, Newton was accused of killing a police officer in cold blood. After being convicted of voluntary manslaughter with a sentence of up to 15 years in prison, the trial was overturned and eventually dropped, mainly on account of a lack of substantial evidence that would otherwise hold Newton guilty of his alleged crime. Being imprisoned for over a year had it's consequences, however. The FBI had tarnished the reputation of the Black Panthers through the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover, and Newton sought to change that image through several new directions for the Black Panthers (mainly focused on public education and feeding the needy). However, his leadership qualities seemed to falter after numerous instances of criminal activity. In 1974, he was accused for murdering a 17-year-old prostitute, to which he fled the country from said accusations. Returning to American to slide away form a different murder charge, Newton was once against accused of criminal activity in 1985 when he was arrested for embezzling federal and state money that was intended to go into the Black Panther's education and nutrition funds. Again caught for embezzlement in 1989, Newton was shot dead in a drug deal gone wrong shortly thereafter.

The courts play an interesting role in this case; or, rather, these several cases. What the courts have done here involve many more political factors than with most other criminals. The issue here is that Huey Newton leads a community of individuals who have been repressed for far too long, and the courts had to exercise a level of restraint on him in order to try and preserve the good nature of the Black Panthers themselves, even if Newton wasn't entirely as pure as his intentions were. If the courts were to jail Newton for his crimes, the black community would be outraged, and (perhaps rightfully so) give justification to their shared belief that the system was entirely against them.

For more information on this complex case, visit the link below:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/huey_newton.htm

Collie Leroy Wilkins

Viola Liuzzo, a 39-year-old white mother of five, was murdered in Detroit by three members of the Ku Klux Clan in 1965. Known for her vigilance as a member of the Civil Rights movement, the Klan members who murdered her did so to set an example for what would become of anyone else who would attempt to help African Americans. The FBI took four suspects into custody within 24 hours; among these suspects, one in particular was the man who did the deed. Collie Leroy Wilkins received his own trial for the murder of Liuzzo shortly after he was found out. His D.A., Matthew Hobson Murphew Jr., was Grand Klonsel of the U.S.A. and was successful in convincing the Alabama Jury of Liuzzo walking into a dangerous line of work, participating in the Civil Rights Movement during the 60's. Ending in a hung jury, three of the four suspects where sent to prison for ten years, whereas the fourth, a man named Gary Rowe was revealed to be an undercover FBI informant, and was therefore placed under the witness protection program. Moved by the murder of Liuzzo, however, President Johnson ordered an investigation of the Klan shortly after. After Wilkins and the other suspects testified in court that it was, in fact, Rowe who had murdered Liuzzo, two police officers present at the time admitted that Rowe had bragged about being the one to kill her.

What truly separates this case apart from the others, however, was the follow-up on this event. Not only did government attorneys successfully dismiss the charges against Rowe, but after the Liuzzo family filed a formal suit accusing the FBI of harboring information concerning the murder of Viola. Not only were the charges against Rowe slightly more evident than Wilkins', but FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was trying to hide the embarrassing fact that he had given permission to Rowe to "do work" during the march that Liuzzo was a part of (giving light to Rowe being an informer who may have been unfit as such). These facts, coupled with the fact that the formal suit presented by the Liuzzo family was not given the benefits of a jury, presents a disturbing case for the FBI.

For more info on this series of trials, visit the link below:

http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1377

Angela Davis

Truly an unfortunate instance of a mixture of poor accusations and even fouler profiling, Angela Davis was arrested and put on trial some time after in February of 1972 in California. The entire mess aroused in a completely different court hearing involving the attempted interruption / bailing out known murderer Johnathon Jackson. A younger brother to one of three radical black inmates, the brother being George Jackson, the entire case was traced back to Angela Davis, the lover of George Jackson. Her disappearance shortly after Johnathon's failed attempt of escape only hardened this false accusation, and Davis was arrested on the charges of murder and conspiracy. But Davis knew she was innocent, and she played her cards right. Defending herself admirably, she testified that she virtually had no connection to the case involving John Jackson simply because she was intimate with his older brother. Furthermore, none of the prosecutions chief witnesses were able to produce solid evidence of any type of involvement she may have had in the ordeal; inevitably, she was acquitted of her charges.

This is one of the less cases that favors the particular ability of the law to judge their criminals; they believed that Davis was a suspect not primarily for her disappearance, but due to her communist sympathies and, most likely, to her being African American. The unfortunate mixture of race and beliefs lead to a poor profiling and, as a result, the court had little to go with as far as actual facts go with the case. However, despite the fact that her jury was all white, her case was presented with enough solid evidence that there was no possible way that Davis was responsible for orchestrating the escape attempt whatsoever; reason prevailed in a case that typically wouldn't have been given much thought if a defendant of Davis' unfortunate stature was unable to defend herself.

For more information regarding the specifics of the trial of Angela Davis, visit the link below:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3498200246.html

Randall Adams

In America, you can go to jail for hitting a police officer, even if it was a minor injury. In 1977, Randall Dale Adams was given a death sentence for murdering a police patrolman in Dallas, Texas. The murder, which occurred one year previously, was actually performed by one David Harris, who blamed Adams for the shooting of Patrolman Robert Wood (Adams, 27, was catching a ride from Harris, 16, a few days before the shooting). Adams was explicitly innocent; he had a few eyewitnesses giving evidence that it couldn't be him, he had no knowledge of the incident whatsoever, yet the prosecution was hellbent on murdering him. Given the death sentence, he was to be executed in 1979, and in between the time that passed before the execution was scheduled, one Doctor James Grigson (a psychiatrist whom the prosecution had hired to testify against Adams during his trial) set out to make a documentary about the case, in order to validate his own personal qualms concerning his practice and whether what he was doing was right. After learning more about David Harris' background, including his extensive criminal record, Grigson also discovered that the prosecution had left out key information about eyewitnesses, and had even bribed certain witnesses into giving false testimony about Adams in court. After releasing the documentary, Adams was granted a new trial and, eventually, his freedom. Though never tried for the murder of Patrolman Wood, Harris was executed for a separate murder incident.

What I took away from this particular court case were multiple elements of how the court system worked further south of the states. First and foremost, the death penalty's presence continues to serve as a deadly reminder for how inhumane a human being can be treated (even if that human being is inhumane in the first place). It also nearly cost an innocent man his life, and with certain scenarios, such as the Adams case, you can never be too careful. I truly appreciated the intrinsic value, however, of the involvement of the psychiatrist, whose documentary went on to become the famous "Thin Blue Line". His interference with the case saved Adams his life and his dignity, and the fact that that courts did recognize their error is a tremendously uplifting factor to consider as well. They could have simply argued that the overwhelming evidence presented by Doctor Grigson was irrelevant and possibly even false, yet they knew that something foul was present. The court system almost failed us here, and yet in the end, justice was delivered.

To find out the fine details on Randall Adams' case, visit this link:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/txAdamsSummary.html

Casey Anthony

Being described by some reporters as the "trial of the century", the Casey Anthony Murder Trial was one of the biggest court cases in America as far as press coverage is concerned. In 2008, Floridian infant and daughter of Casey, Caylee Anthony, was reported missing by one Cindy
Anthony, the mother of Casey herself. Telling the authorities that her daughter's car smelled like a dead body was inside, the skeletal remains of Caylee were found in a bag outside of the woods of Casey's parents home, direct evidence that the body had been moved from Casey's automobile to her own parent's house, in an attempt at covering up what she had done. Placed under arrest, it was on the local Florida news stations quick, and it picked up speed as the story spread through the nation. The "monster mom", seen partying four days after the remains of her daughter were dug up. All the evidence was pointing toward her nearly obvious guilt, and yet after much deliberation, despite having lied to the police on four accounts, Casey Anthony was given a Not Guilty sentence, but had to serve four years for her accounts of lying to the cops. She was released from prison three years instead for good behavior.

This case, I felt was unfortunately going to be the ringleader in my mind to be the court case to demonstrate the weaker aspect of the court: the ability for technical law to overrule eyewitness testimony. There wasn't enough physical evidence to support the claims made against Casey for murdering her child, though there was enough rhetorical evidence presented by the numerous eyewitnesses and experts who were involved in the prosecution. Such an erroneous crime was shrugged off, and yet even many subtle notions were made by the defendant and her peers, some of them chuckling to themselves during her trial. Weeks after her daughter was found dead, Casey went to get a tattoo of "Beautiful life" in Italian.

For more information on the Casey Anthony Trial, visit this page and check out some of the other hyperlinks contained within the article as well:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077969,00.html

John Gotti Jr.

Changing scenery a bit, we take this next case examination to New York, back in 1992, though one could certainly say it wasn't the first time it would involve one John Gotti Jr. of the mafia. Born in 1940, Gotti Jr. started out as a petty thief in a street gang. His first arrest was when he was fourteen years old, yet he was able to talk his way out of stealing a cement mixer by

"attributing the theft to a boyhood prank."* Moving up in the criminal underground, Gotti found himself as a member of the Gambino family, the most powerful Italian mafia in the nation at the time. After aiding in and committing several felonies for the mafia, eventually he became the godfather through the usual tradition of the next-in-line being whacked by someone else. Cited by many as the "Teflon Don" during his reign as Godfather, it was an expression showing his ability to bypass the law, even when he has cold evidence against him. However, his charm and good nature towards the judicial system would not last as his criminal record stacked up during his years as the Don, and he was eventually arrested on multiple accounts of murder, drug trafficking, loan sharking and other felonies. Put up against an anonymous jury in 1992, for their sakes, and he was finally held guilty on all thirteen counts, and not even his reputation could persuade his way out of justice that year.

What I took away from this case was not so much the impact it may have had on the state of New York, or even on the people directly involved in the crime. The nature of this criminal that led me to blog about him in particular was his natural affinity of working around the judicial system, which was something I wanted to bring to light in some manner. It happens: certain people are able to buy their freedom, or rather their lives back, for what a common murderer wouldn't be able to afford. A man with the amount of influence of Gotti Jr., not just in the underground but also in the casinos in particular was able to easily slide through justice until it all stacked up and buried him under a mountain of neglect and carelessness. The court system isn't like this everywhere; that's hardly what I am suggesting with this post. All I wish to bring to light was the fact that you don't just see these kinds of happenings in gangster films.

For more information on John Gotti Jr. and his trial, visit the link below:
*http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/gottilinks.html

Michael Woodmansee

One of Rhode Island's most notorious criminals in the past few decades, Michael Woodmansee is a man who committed a crime so unspeakable, that the aftermath of his court case still resides with Rhode Island residents even to this day. A little info on his crime; back when he was sixteen, Woodmansee lured a five year old boy into his home in 1975, where he proceeded to kill and eat him. Hiding all evidence rather successfully for some time, the bag of the victim's bones was only discovered because Woodmansee attempted to strangle yet another boy, this one fourteen, in 1982. However, the fourteen year old managed to fend off Woodmansee and had him in the spotlight. Michael confessed his previous murder of five year old Jason Foreman and was jailed. Originally sentenced for 40 years, there was no trial because the family didn't want more details unearthed about the nature of their son's murder. As a result, Woodmansee's attorney accepted a plea bargain for 40 years imprisonment. To make matters worse, recent reports have been circuiting the media lately that Woodmansee had just gotten out of prison twelve years earlier than he was supposed to, on account of "good behavior", in August 2011. Fortunately, upon his release from prison, he was put in a mental institution in Cranston, Rhode Island on a 21 year probation, so Rhode Island families won't have to worry about this man being on the streets.

This case I feel was an excellent example of restraint on not just the court system, but for those families who are affected by the victims of a crime. The family was somehow able to put this horrible crime to rest and spare Woodmansee from a trial where he almost indefinitely would have been given a life sentence in prison. They didn't abuse the court system as a means to exact justice, like nearly any other family would have, and it is a rare thing to see restraint with matters such as these. However, upon hearing of Woodmansee's early release, the father did make a statement saying he would kill Woodmansee if he ever got the chance, so it really goes to show how valuable to courts are to both the victim's family and the criminal. I am hardly condoning child murder when I say that it was a good thing that he never got a trial; I merely found this family to show a tremendous amount of restraint despite the facts of the matter.

If anyone wishes to find out more about this case, visit the link below:

http://pysih.com/2011/03/30/michael-woodmansee/

A Purposeful First Exclamation

This blog, I will state preemptively, has not been created to spark political anarchy against the American court system, in fact I am rather fond of it. I think that it is a successful and, rightly so, stern branch of the American government. That being said, I have created this blog to raise awareness in certain court cases that received some attention in the media, some older and more recent cases alike. The general goal that I work for lies within what you, the audience, will take away from the knowledge of these cases. Some of you will be involved in juries later on in life, and perhaps an understanding of court cases will be of valuable assistance to you. I've never been one for gossip, but there are some court cases here in America that certainly deserve the attention that they have received, and it is going to be an interesting experience telling you all about them.