Judicial Process Course Schedule and Essay Questions


JudicialProcess Course Schedule and Essay Questions

Mad Men isan American television show, which premiered on 19th July,2007. In episode 6 of season one, Joan Holloway, one of thesupporting casts and the manager of secretarial pool became a rapedby an unknown person near her home after coming from work (Edgerton,2011). Few blocks away, Jackson Bain found himself in a totally newreality that evening. Jackson Bain is thought to have carried out theheinous act on Joan Holloway. Early that evening, Jackson Bainstrolled home after coming from a friend’s party a few blocks away.He walked in a few minutes past 10 p.m., flipped on the TV, and hesoon fell asleep on the couch.

Two police officerswoke him up at midnight, apprehended him, and took him to the policestation. The police informed him about the rape case. This was madepossible after Joan Holloway had given the police a description ofwhat vaguely appeared like it was Bain (Edgerton, 2011). The victimalso told the police that she remembered seeing what appeared to be ared motorcycle, which coincidentally was owned by Bain. The victimalso gave a description of a man with bushy sideburns and mustache,which also fit the accused description. Even though there were fiveother individuals who fit the description, Bain was the one chosen.

According toEdgerton (2011), misidentification from a person noted to be aneyewitness accounted for 75% of the total convictions, which waslater overturned by the use of DNA evidence. Bain pleaded for the useof DNA, but the trial court denied citing complications andtimeliness. The FBI also conducted serological analysis to determine“perpetrator’s” blood type through the use of semen found inJoan’s underwear. Bain’s blood was found to be type AB, whilethat of the perpetrator was, according to (Edgerton, 2011). The FBIalso told the trial jury minimal chances of ruling out that Bain wasnot the perpetrator. Jackson Bain was eventually earned a sentenceterm of seven years without bail. The outcome of the trail wasunfair. This is because of the jury’s ignorance to the use of DNAand proper analysis of the blood group type.

Terry vs Ohio(1968) was a notable decision at the time made by the U.S SupremeCourt. The decision held that Fourth Amendment prohibition ofunwarranted searches and seizures is not a violation of a person,especially when a police officer in his line of duty stops anindividual on the streets to conduct frisking procedure without anyprobable cause to carry out an arrest. This is when the policeofficer is sure of a reasonable suspicion the person has committed orintends to commit, and has a proof that the person “is likely to beharmed and is dangerous” (Siegel et al., 2015).

For the officer’sprotection, he or she may conduct a quick surface frisking in searchof weapons, more so when he or she has reasonable suspicion based on“articulated and specific facts” (Siegel et al., 2015), and notjust a mere hunch from the officer. This kind of permission has sincebeen referred to as “stop and frisk” or just “terry and frisk”.The rationale behind this decision from the Supreme Court revolvedaround an opinion that noted that “there are limitations in theexclusionary rule” (Siegel et al., 2015). The rule aimed atprotecting individuals from unwarranted searches and seizures.

Terry vs Ohiocase began on 31st October, 1963. Detective MartinMcFadden from the Police Department in Cleveland was on a patrol indowntown Cleveland. The detective saw two men Richard Chilton andJohn W. Terry, at1276 Euclid Avenue who were both standing on thestreet corner (Siegel et al., 2015). The detective thought it hassuspicious, and having observed keenly for some time, he saw the twostare through the store window. A third person, Katz, joined them,but he left immediately. The plainclothes detective approached thesuspects, identified himself as a detective. He apprehended themafter he frisked them and seized a revolver and a pistol from Terry.

All the three weretaken to court, and Chilton and Terry were charged subsequently withpossession of concealed weapons. During the case, the defense movedforward to stop the use of seized weapons to be used as evidence onthe grounds that search and seizure violated the U.S Fourth Amendmentwithin the constitution (Siegel et al., 2015). The prosecution theorywas rejected by the trial court on grounds that weapons had beenretrieved at the time of conducting the search. The motion was deniedby the court and included the weapons to be used as evidence. Thecourt termed it has evidence since the two, Terry and Chilton, hadacted suspiciously. Siegel et al., (2015) observed that during thecase, the trial court made it clear that there is a distinctionbetween “stop” as an inventory and an “arrest” and differencebetween “frisk”, which involved outer clothing and intensivesearch for crime evidences.

The case isimportant because it has since brought majority opinion regarding thecase. The case brought forth the Fourth Amendments’ firstprinciples, which aimed at sensitizing individuals about theirprotection, and not places against what the case termed it as“unreasonable searches and seizures” (Siegel et al., 2015).Considering the question lingered in peoples’ minds, the case wasimportant since it shade light on circumstances faced daily byordinary people. Whether in all the circumstances during streetencounter with the police, and just like Terry, there was reason tofind out reasonable expectations of everyone’s privacy andimpermissible inversion without their consent.


Edgerton, G. R. (2011). Mad men: Dream come true TV. London:I.B. Tauris.

Siegel, L. J., Schmalleger, F., &amp Worrall, J. L. (2015). Courtsand criminal justice in America (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,NJ: Pearson.