Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Norris v. Alabama (1935)

Read a random definition: mortgage commitment

A quick definition of Norris v. Alabama (1935):

Norris v. Alabama (1935) was a court case about nine young Black men who were falsely accused of raping two white women. One of the men, Clarence Norris, argued that he did not receive a fair trial because there were no Black people on the jury. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and overturned his conviction, saying that there was evidence of discrimination against Black people in the jury selection process. This case helped to establish that everyone, no matter their race, should have a fair trial with a jury of their peers.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Norris v. Alabama (1935) was a case that involved the trial of nine young African-American men, known as the "Scottsboro Boys," who were falsely accused and tried for raping two white women. Clarence Norris was one of the accused. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Norris v. State. The Supreme Court found that Norris's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated due to the systematic and arbitrary exclusion of African Americans from the trial venire. The Court also found evidence of discrimination in the jury selection process.

Example: The Scottsboro Boys were accused of raping two white women on a train in Alabama in 1931. Despite a lack of evidence, they were quickly convicted and sentenced to death. The case was appealed several times, and eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Norris v. Alabama, the Court found that the exclusion of African Americans from the jury selection process was unconstitutional, and overturned Norris's conviction.

Explanation: The example illustrates how the case of Norris v. Alabama was part of a larger legal battle over the rights of African Americans in the criminal justice system. The Scottsboro Boys were victims of a racist and unjust legal system, and their case became a symbol of the struggle for civil rights in the United States. The Supreme Court's decision in Norris v. Alabama was an important victory for civil rights advocates, and helped to establish legal precedents that would be used in future cases.

nontransferable ticket | North Carolina

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.