i dont realy no
in 1988
the first amendment
The Supreme Court case that allowed schools to censor newspapers is Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). The court ruled that school administrations have the authority to exercise reasonable control over school-sponsored publications if they are part of the school curriculum and can be reasonably viewed as educational tools. This decision limited the First Amendment rights of student journalists in public schools.
In the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district, allowing them to censor school-sponsored publications if the content is reasonably related to legitimate educational concerns. This decision limited student First Amendment rights in the school setting.
In the case of the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the students of Hazelwood High School that were publishing a school-wide newspaper were subject to reviews and edits by public school officials. In other words, Principal Robert Reynolds had the right to omit the two pages from the newspaper that he deemed to be inappropriate for the school to view. The individual rights of Freedom of Speech of the students in the journalism class were not violated as forums for student expression were of a lower level of First Amendment protection than the protection of individual students and staff. Also because the newspaper was school-sponsored, those participating in it were subject to obligations by the sponsor (in this case Principal Robert Reynolds).
Hazelwood School was created in 1890.
In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 US 260 (1988), the Court held that public school newspapers not explicitly established as fora for student opinion enjoyed a lower level of First Amendment protection and could be censored by school officials. The Chief Justice during this case was William H. Rehnquist (1986-2005).
During opening arguments the prosecution presents theirs first, they will explain to a jury all of the circumstances of the case and explain what they will present to prove all of the evidence along with the type of testimony for the jury/judge to expect from any scheduled witnesses. The defense can present an opening argument at that time or they can reserve the option until after the prosecution presents their case. If the defense chooses to proceed with the opening they will explain why the Prosecutions case will be flawed, and what witnesses the defense will present to rebut the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
During opening arguments the prosecution presents theirs first, they will explain to a jury all of the circumstances of the case and explain what they will present to prove all of the evidence along with the type of testimony for the jury/judge to expect from any scheduled witnesses. The defense can present an opening argument at that time or they can reserve the option until after the prosecution presents their case. If the defense chooses to proceed with the opening they will explain why the Prosecutions case will be flawed, and what witnesses the defense will present to rebut the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
This was a 1988 Supreme Court case that held that student newpapers produced within the curriculum of a school (such as a journalism or writing class that is sponsored by the school) were not entitled to the same level of First Amendment protection as those of more general circulation. The United States Supreme Court decision reversed that of a lower court which had limited the school's right of control over the content of the school-sponsored paper. The citation for the Supreme Court decision is 484 U.S. 260.
The defendants name, the charges being brought against him and a brief outline of the prosecutions case. (i.e. "We will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that on the 23rd of February, 2010, at approximately 10:30 PM in Bexar TX, the defendant did willfully and with malice and forethought etc.") As for the defense attorney's opening argument, they really don't have to say much, but they do make it a habit of telling the jury their client is innocent.
If malice can be proved it strengthens the prosecutions case for pre-meditated murder, or Murder in the First Degree.