Amendments and cases Flashcards
The Fourth amendment
was established in order to protect individual liberties from governmental overreaches
Graham v. Connor (1989)
▶ Graham had diabetes, went into a convenience store to get orange juice but then left to try to make it home to avoid a diabetic episode
▶ His friend, who was driving, was stopped on the way home; he began experiencing the episode and exited the car and sat on the curb and went into diabetic shock
▶ Officers found this suspicious, handcuffed him, and used physical force
▶ He attempted to inform the officers he was experiencing a medical emergency
▶ The officers perceived this as violently resisting arrest
▶ The officers learned that no crime had been committed at the convenience store and dropped Graham off in his front yard
The officer’s actions fail to meet the objective
reasonableness standard, they violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure
Fifth Amendment
No person shall be…compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
held that suspects had right to counsel during police interrogation
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
The Court decided that although the defendant did sign a confession to a crime, that confession was not valid; because he was not informed about his right to remain silent or that answers he gave in questioning could be used against him in Court
Schmerber v. California (1966)
The Court held that an involuntary blood test drawn while a suspect was in the hospital (without a warrant) did not constitute self-incrimination because it was not a testimony and that there was clearly established probable cause for a search
South Dakota v. Neville (1983)
Court held that prosecutors using an individual’s refusal to take a blood alcohol test as evidence of his guilt does not violate the fifth amendment
Missouri v. McNeely (2013)
Court determined that an involuntary blood draw is a search, and that a body’s natural metabolism is not exigent circumstances, so police are required to obtain a warrant before forcing a driver to a blood test
Sixth Amendment
- Speedy and public trial
- Impartial jury
- Informed about the accusation
- Confrontation of witnesses
- Compulsory process for obtaining witnesses
- Assistance of counsel
Scottsboro Boys
In 1931, a group of 9 Black teenagers (13-19 years old) were riding a freight train in Tennessee
▶ A group of white boys initiated a fight with them, were forced off the train, and then reported to a train officer that they were attacked
▶ Group assembled by the Sheriff searched the train in Alabama, find the boys and also found two white girls on the train who claim the boys raped them
▶ While they were in jail, a mob formed calling for the lynching of the boys
▶ The Sheriff protected the jail from the mob
Scottsboro Trial
▶ Arrest March 25, indictment March 31, trial April 6
▶ Judge ordered “all members of the local bar” to represent them; effectively, one lawyer assigned for all 9; another real estate lawyer stepped in the day of
▶ Were not allowed to contact their families
▶ A lot of media coverage effecting public opinion, and therefore the jury pool
▶ All 9 boys are arrested and rushed through trial (involving the death penalty) in Scottsboro, Alabama
▶ 8 of the 9 were found guilty and sentenced to death
▶ The only evidence was the testimony of the girls
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
▶ Was appealed up to Alabama Supreme Court, who upheld all but 1 conviction and sentencing
▶ Drew attention to American Communist Party, who
intervened on behalf of the boys
▶ Compounded media attention
▶ Reaches the U.S. Supreme Court in 1932
▶ Court decides 7-2 that the Scottsboro boys did not receive a fair trial because they were denied legally competent counsel
▶ Opinion states that trial court did not give them reasonable time and opportunity to get counsel, and even if they could not themselves employ counsel, it was so necessary for a fair trial that the court should have made an effective appointment
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
▶ In Florida, Gideon accused of breaking into a poolhall and stealing wine & cigarettes
▶ Asked the trial court to appoint him counsel but they refused because it was not a capital case (per Florida law)
▶ The Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether states have to provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford it (indigent defendants) in noncapital cases
▶ Unanimously decided yes, in all criminal cases state must provide counsel to indigent defendants
