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
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
A Black man was on trial for burglary in Kentucky
▶ first trial resulted in a hung jury– all but one juror (a Black woman) voted to convict
▶ In the next jury selection process, the prosecution used peremptory strikes to remove all 4 Black people from the jury pool
▶ The defense objected to this jury, arguing that these strikes were racially motivated
▶ In the trial, the judge overruled the objection, and Batson was convicted
▶ But it was appealed up to the Supreme Court on the grounds that this was a denial of equal protection of the law
▶ The Supreme Court sided with Batson, deciding that removing jurors solely on the basis of race was unconstitutional
Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Furman v. Georgia (1972)
A collection of three cases (all black men) in which the defendants were assigned the death penalty
After Furman: Stopped all executions until states clarified laws, sentences
reduced to life decision, and 35 states enacted new statutes providing for the death penalty
Gordon & Yntiso (2022)
Incentive Effects of Recall Elections: Evidence from Criminal Sentencing in California Courts
▶ In 2016, an athlete at Stanford was convicted of sexual assault, and was given an unusually lenient sentence by a Santa Clara judge
▶ The backlash to this sentence led to a recall election, which was the first recall election that reached the ballot since 1982
▶After the announcement of the recall election, judges sentence much more harshly
▶ Suggesting salience of judicial recall elections make judges
more punitive– not wanting to seem soft on crime
Dred Scott v Sandford (1857)
Ruled that Black people could not be citizens of the United States (by birth or naturalization)
Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction therefore are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
A person of Chinese descent born in the U.S. was denied re-entry into the United States per the Chinese Exclusion Act
▶ Though his parents were not naturalized, Wong Kim Ark argues that he is a citizen under the 14th Amendment
▶ Supreme Court agrees, arguing that a child born in the U.S. of citizens of China residing in the U.S. was automatically a citizen of the U.S. at birth
▶ Interpreted “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as being required to follow U.S. law
▶ However, the dissent says that subject to the jurisdiction means not being subject to a foreign power (i.e. not inheriting another citizenship from a parent)
Article 1, Section 9
Limits the power of the federal government
Koramatsu v. United States (1944)
▶ Fred Koramatsu, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, refused to comply with law and order that said “all persons of Japanese ancestry” must relocate from the exclusion zone
▶ He also got plastic surgery in an attempt to hide the fact that he was Japanese
▶ He was reported for violating this order and arrested
▶ Koramatsu argued that the internment of Japanese Americans violated the Fifth Amendment protection of Due Process
After: evidence presented at trial that there was espionage within the Japanese American community has been discredited, and the convictions in Koramatsu and Hirabayashi overturned
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (continued)
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Several Black students in Topeka, Kansas, were denied access to their closest public school and bused to further segregated Black schools
▶ Sued the Topeka Board of Education over this policy
▶ The Court found that segregated schools violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
▶ Argued that the provision of public education is among the
most important roles of state and local governments
▶ And that separate schools were fundamentally unequal, and
therefore deny the students equal protection of the law
The Fourteenth Amendment Legacy
- interpreted as largely ensuring the constitutional protections for due process in federal states also bind the states
- invokes a lot in evaluating the constitutionality of state’s policies: Abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage
