Outline Reid v. Covert Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

synopsis Reid v. privateness - Case Study ExampleMost importantly, this case pits the Constitution of the Unites earths against international treaties. In this case, Mrs. Clarice Covert killed her preserve, a sergeant in the United States Air Force, at an airbase in England. At that time, she was living with her husband on the base. Despite her being a civilian, she was tried by a court-martial for murder nether Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Mrs. Coverts counsel attempted to assert temporary insanity on her behalf but she was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Air Force Board of Review, 16 CMR 465, support the judgment but it was reversed by the Court of Military Appeals, 6 U.S.C.M.A 48, as it had suspected nearly prejudicial errors concerning the defense of insanity. Mrs. Covert was being held in England as she awaited her retrial by court-martial in the District of Columbia. After a writ of habeas corpus was petitioned by her counsel, the Distr ict court held that Mrs. Covert could not be tried by court-martial and ordered to release her from custody. The case was then argued at utmost(a) term and it was held that Mrs. Coverts court-martial was constitutional. ... They discarded the fact that the Congress had actually never provided for much(prenominal) trials in the Constitution. If it is not in the Constitution, it is not a rule or law. The Articles III, 2 and the Fifth and 6th Amendment are directly applicable to this case. Article III, 2 lay the rule that, The Trial of all Crimes, turn out in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury, and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall arouse been committed but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. This means that the trial, for a crime that is committed abroad (not within any State), must be held in such practice where the Congress has directed. Since the incept ion of this section in the Constitution, it has always meant to be followed without any exception. The Fifth Amendment provides that, No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public endangerment . . . The words No person are very(prenominal) important since they obliterate any exception for civilians. Although it is very clear that it excludes the soldiers and officers of the Armed forces, there is no inclusion of their dependents either. Their dependents are civilians and when the Fifth Amendments says No Person shall be deprived of the right to be tried in the civil court, it includes them. The Sixth Amendment declares that, In all crook prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and