Review the two cases found in Chapter 5 of your textbook. Be sure to follow the instructions for this assignment. 1. Outline the facts of the cases; 2. Give a brief overview of the Court decisions; 3. Compare and contrast these cases. 4. Do you agree or disagree with the decisions of the Courts?

QUESTION

For the assignment in this section here are some guidelines:

The cases are listed with the citations for the project.
When writing your answers and you are citing the case, follow how the case citation is listed.
Make an outline of the key facts of each case in order to compare and contrast the different Court’s decisions.
Begin this assignment with an introduction (three to five sentence paragraph).
For the body of the research, use at least two paragraphs for each case. Briefly detailing the case and facts, and the outcome of the case.
The next paragraph should be a compare and or contrast of the cases since both are in the Chapter 5 section of the eText regarding Criminal Defenses.
As the final paragraphs of the assignment, give your opinion if you agree or disagree with the court decisions.
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

State v. Holmes, 129 Ohio Misc. 2d 38 (2004)

Review the two cases found in Chapter 5 of your textbook.

Be sure to follow the instructions for this assignment.

1. Outline the facts of the cases;

2. Give a brief overview of the Court decisions;

3. Compare and contrast these cases.

4. Do you agree or disagree with the decisions of the Courts?

ANSWER

A Comparative Analysis of Tennessee v. Garner and State v. Holmes: Court Decisions and Perspectives on Criminal Defenses

Introduction

In the realm of criminal defenses, two significant cases stand out: Tennessee v. Garner and State v. Holmes. These cases, discussed in Chapter 5 of the textbook, have shaped the legal landscape surrounding the use of force by law enforcement officers. While Tennessee v. Garner revolves around the Fourth Amendment’s application to deadly force, State v. Holmes tackles the issue of self-defense and the duty to retreat. By examining the facts and outcomes of these cases, we can gain a deeper understanding of the courts’ decisions and their implications.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

The case of Tennessee v. Garner centers around the shooting of a fleeing suspect by a police officer. In this case, an officer responded to a burglary call and encountered Edward Garner, a 15-year-old unarmed suspect, attempting to flee over a backyard fence. Without warning, the officer fired his weapon, fatally injuring Garner. The key question before the court was whether the officer’s use of deadly force was constitutionally permissible under the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, held that the use of deadly force to apprehend an unarmed fleeing suspect is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, absent probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others (Tennessee V. Garner – the Fleeing Felon Rule | Office of Justice Programs, n.d.). The court emphasized the sanctity of human life and the need for law enforcement to balance the interests of effective crime prevention with the preservation of individual rights. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Garner’s estate, stating that the officer’s actions violated the Fourth Amendment.

State v. Holmes (2004)

State v. Holmes revolves around a self-defense claim made by an individual charged with felonious assault. The case unfolded when Holmes, the defendant, engaged in a physical altercation with another individual outside a bar. During the altercation, Holmes stabbed the other person, resulting in serious injuries. The primary issue in this case was whether Holmes had a duty to retreat before resorting to the use of force in self-defense.

The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the duty to retreat did not apply to Holmes under the specific circumstances presented. The court recognized that individuals have a right to defend themselves when they reasonably believe they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In this case, the court concluded that Holmes had a reasonable belief of imminent danger, thereby justifying his use of force in self-defense. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Holmes and reversed his conviction.

Comparison and Contrast

Tennessee v. Garner and State v. Holmes differ in their focus and the legal principles involved. Tennessee v. Garner primarily deals with the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers, specifically addressing the circumstances under which such force can be employed. In contrast, State v. Holmes focuses on the application of self-defense and the duty to retreat for individuals involved in altercations.

Both cases, however, share a common theme of balancing the interests of public safety with individual rights. In Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for law enforcement to consider the threat level posed by a suspect before resorting to deadly force (Tennessee V. Garner – the Fleeing Felon Rule | Office of Justice Programs, n.d.-b). Similarly, in State v. Holmes, the court recognized the importance of self-defense rights but emphasized the requirement of reasonable belief in imminent danger.

Opinion

The decision in Tennessee v. Garner has set a precedent that law enforcement officers must carefully assess the threat level before using deadly force against a fleeing suspect (The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review on JSTOR, n.d.). On the other hand, State v. Holmes recognizes the importance of self-defense rights and acknowledges that individuals should not be required to retreat when faced with imminent danger.

In conclusion, the decisions of the courts in both cases appear to be reasonable and justifiable, considering the specific circumstances and legal principles involved. These cases highlight the importance of striking a balance between law enforcement’s duty to protect the public and individuals’ rights to self-defense. By carefully weighing the facts and legal considerations, the courts in these cases have contributed to the ongoing development of criminal defense principles and the interpretation of constitutional rights.

References

Tennessee v. Garner – The Fleeing Felon Rule | Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/tennessee-v-garner-fleeing-felon-rule#:~:text=In%20its%20decision%2C%20the%20Court,felony%20suspects%20was%20constitutionally%20impermissible. 

Tennessee v. Garner – The Fleeing Felon Rule | Office of Justice Programs. (n.d.-b). https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/tennessee-v-garner-fleeing-felon-rule 

The Core of the Case against Judicial Review on JSTOR. (n.d.). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20455656