Ch. 11-13 Flashcards
Due Process Clause
Protects a person’s right to liberty, life, and property. Gov cannot deprive without due process of law. Uses term person instead of citizen or resident.
Due Process Clause Amendments
Fifth (Federal) and Fourteenth (State and Local)
Procedural Due Process
Government must treat persons fairly while it attempt to interfere with their liberty interests. How Gov processes and safeguards individuals and their claims
Substantive Due Process
Concerns the type of substance of behavior that is included as a “liberty” under Due Process Clause.
Fifth Amendment
No Person shall be deprived life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Fourteenth Amendment
No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Protected Due Process Liberties (5)
Privacy, Marriage, same-sex marriage, adult choice of consensual sexual activity, right to travel
Not Recognized as protected liberty in due process (3)
Physician-assisted Suicide, Right to die, private use of illegal narcotics
Strict Scrutiny Test
Most rigorous constitutional test; right to privacy is weighed against the gov’s intrusion upon this right, requires compelling need.
Ninth Amendment
The enumeration of certain rights does not deny or disparage other rights (catch all)
Roe V Wade (1973)
Court struck down a Texas Law outlawing abortion, gov could not interfere with fundamental privacy without compelling government interest.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Court ruled that a Texas law outlawing homosexual sodomy, but permitting heterosexual sodomy, deprived individuals of a liberty interest protected by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Obergefell v Hodges (2015)
Invalidated laws against same sex marriage due to violated liberty interests under Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (1996)
Established a federal definition of marriage excluding same-sex marriage.
United States v Windsor (2013)
Found ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
The Contract Clause
States cannot impair the obligations of contracts
Due Process as an Economic Liberty
Constitutional enhancement for racial equality
The Takings Clause (Economic Liberty Fifth Amendment)
Protects against government taking of private property for public use without just compensation
Liberty of Contract
Fourteenth Amendment provision to engage in contractual relations without governmental interference
Eminent Domain
Power of government to take property for public use provided just compensation
Agins v Tiburon (1980)
Clarified land-use regulation - substantially advances legitimate state interests and does not deny an owner economically viable use of his land.
Concept of Liberty
Freedom from unreasonable restraint
Fundamental Liberty Interests (7)
Speech, religious freedom, equality, association, liberty, assembly, trial by jury
Fundamental Rights
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Right to vote
Right to privacy
Right to bear arms
Protection against self-incrimination
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
Equal protection
Griswold v Connecticut (1985)
the Court identified a constitutionally protected right to privacy, which the court reasoned prohibited states from denying birth control to married couples.
Strict Constructionist
interprets the United States Constitution in a literal and narrow manner, limiting the federal government’s powers to what is explicitly granted in the Constitution
Original Intent
Constitution should be interpreted based on the intentions of the people who created i
Original understanding
interprets the Constitution’s text as it was understood by the public at the time it was ratified.
Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a person seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable
Gonzales V Carhart
The Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent states from passing a law against partial-birth abortion if the state bases the reasoning for the law on special ethical and moral concerns that do not apply to most other forms of abortion.
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
tore away the constitutional right to privacy and bodily autonomy by giving states increased rights to limit and even outlaw abortions. Fortunately, the decision did not ban abortions nationwide.
Bowers v Hardwick
Later overruled by Lawrence v. Texas, this decision found that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a state from criminalizing private sexual conduct involving same-sex couples.
Washington v Glucksberg
A case in which the Court decided that a law banning physician-assisted suicide does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gonzales v Oregon
the Court found that the Attorney General not only lacked legal authority to regulate medical practice but concluded that, if anything, the CSA denied him the very power he claimed.
Lockner v New York (1905)
the Supreme Court ruled that a New York law setting maximum working hours for bakers was unconstitutional.
Equal Protection Clause
requires the government to have a valid reason for treating people differently
Three Basic Constitutional Values
Security, Liberty, Equality
Thirteenth Amendment
Bans Slavery
Privileges of Immunities Clause
Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying persons the privileges or immunities of American citizenship
Fifteenth Amendment
Government cannot deny persons the right to vote based on race, color, or previous servitude
Nineteenth Amendment
Voting rights regardless of sex
Twenty-Fourth Amendment
Prohibits poll taxes or other taxes
Twenty-sixth Amendment
Ensures persons eighteen years and older are entitled to vote
Civil Rights Act of 1871 “section 1983”
Provides anyone who, under color of state or local law, causes a person to be deprived of rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, or federal law, can be ordered to pay for damages caused to that person.
Title II (Civil Rights Act)
Provides that all persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Title VI (Civil Rights Act)
Provides that no person shall, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Title VII (Civil Rights Act)
Prohibits employers with fifteen or more employees from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Title VIII (Civil Rights Act)
Prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. It also prohibits such discrimination in any residential real-estate transaction, including the making or purchasing of loans.
Title IX (Civil Rights Act)
Federal Education Act - No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Voting Rights Act (1965)
Prohibits racial discrimination in elections.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978)
Amends the 1964 Civil Rights act to include sex-based discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967)
Protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age.
Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)
Bars discrimination against anyone who has a mental or physical disability in the area of employment, public services, transportation, public accommodations, and telecommunications.
Constitutional standards - Suspect
Considered highly suspicious, the discrimination interferes with fundamental rights (race and alienage discrimination)
Constitutional Standards - Semi Suspect
Somewhat suspicious and deserves a heightened form of judicial scrutiny (includes sex-based discrimination)
Constitutional standards - Non Suspect
Not suspicious and requires minimal judicial scrutiny (discrimination based on person’s wealth, age, sexual orientation)
Suspect Discrimination
Strict Scrutiny - Gov action necessary to promote compelling gov interest (race, fundamental rights)
Semi-Suspect Discrimination
Intermediate Scrutiny - government action substantially related to important gov interest (sex, legitimacy/illegitimacy)
Rational Basis Discrimination
Rational Basis Test - Government Action rationally related to legitimate governmental interest (age, Income/Wealth, Sexual orientation)
Brown v Board of Education (1954)
the Supreme Court ruled that separating children in public schools on the basis of race was unconstitutional.
Board of Education Oklahoma City Public Schools v Dowell (1991)
the Court held that school districts under federal desegregation orders could end forced busing of students and begin implementing neighborhood schools, even though this plan would likely result in a racial imbalance among the schools.
Affirmative Action
any policy that seeks to promote greater opportunities for individuals of an identifiable group, whose members have been previously excluded from or who are currently underrepresented in particular educational, employment, or social settings, using proactive measures, as opposed to more punitive methods.
Brown v Board of Education (II)
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must end segregation in public schools “with all deliberate speed”
Plessy v Ferguson
Invalidated by Brown v Board of Education. “Separate but equal”
Race
Suspect form of discrimination
Nongovernmental Discrimination
Non-discrimination is a fundamental part of the principle of equality. It ensures that no one is denied their rights due to factors such as race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or other factor
Dred Scot v Sanford (1857)
enslaved people were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts.
Strict Scrutiny
holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a “compelling state interest”.
Intermediate Scrutiny
the government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.
Rational Basis
prohibits the government from imposing restrictions on liberty that are irrational or arbitrary, or drawing distinctions between persons in a manner that serves no constitutionally legitimate end.
Sexual Orientation
Non-Suspect - minimal judicial Scrutiny (Rational Basis Test)
De Jure Segregation
Established by Law
De Facto Segregation
Based on Factors not policy or laws
Gruttier v Bollinger (2003)
The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions.
Gratz v Bollinger (2003)
The admission procedure discriminated against certain racial and ethnic groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fisher v University of Texas (2013)
use of race as a consideration in admission decisions was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Race
Strict Scrutiny - Suspect
Sex-Based (Gender) Discrimination
Intermediate Test; Non-Suspect (Upheld if rationally related to legitimate government interest)
Alienage
Suspect-Strict Scrutiny
Illegitimacy
Non-Suspect or Semi-Suspect (Intermediate Scrutiny)
Age
Non-Suspect (Rational Basis Review)
Wealth/Indigency
Non-Suspect for equal protection purposes
Gerrymandering
Misuse or abuse of legislative redistricting
Frontiero v Richardson
Sharron Frontiero, who won a gender discrimination lawsuit against the U.S. Air Force, with her husband Joseph for him to receive military spouse benefits. Court ruled that a law classifying benefits on the basis of gender violated the Due Process Clause 5th Amendment.
United States v Virginia
Virginia Military Institute male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. failed to show “exceedingly persuasive justification” for gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Students for Fair Admissions v President and Fellows of Harvard College
race-conscious affirmative action, the consideration of an applicant’s race as one factor in making an admissions decision particularly to realize the educational benefits of diversity violates Due Process Clause 5th Amendment.
Federal and States different approach to Sexual Orientation Cases
“intermediate scrutiny” standard to sex-based classifications, meaning they are considered “semi-suspect,” there can be slight variations in how individual courts interpret and apply this standard, with some states potentially being more lenient in upholding sex-based laws compared to federal courts when reviewing similar cases;
Romer v Evans (1996)
Colorado voters passed Amendment 2, which prevented the state from passing laws or policies that would protect LGBTQ+ people from discrimination; violates equal protection clause. failing the “rational basis” test, meaning the law lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose
Search and Seizure (Fourth Amendment)
Bars government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers, and effects
Warrant Provision (Fourth Amendment)
Provides that the government must demonstrate probable cause before a warrant will be issued by a judge.
Grand Jury Provision (5th Amendment)
Requires the government to obtain a grand jury indictment in order to charge a person with a capital offense or a felony (not all states use; not incorporated)
Double Jeopardy Clause (Fifth Amendment)
Provides that government may not punish a person twice for the same offense
Self Incrimination Provision (5th Amendment)
states that within a criminal case, individuals cannot be forced to provide testimony against themselves
Due Process Clause (Fifth Amendment)
Provides that the federal government may not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law
Sixth Amendment Provisions
-Speedy Trial Provision
-Right to Public Trial
-Right to be heard by jury of your peers
-Right to be informed of your charges
-Confrontation Clause (view and cross examine witnesses against you)
-Compulsory Process Clause (Compel witnesses to testify)
-Right to an attorney
Eighth Amendment Provisions
-Protection from excessive bail
-Protection from excessive fines
-Protection from Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Constitutional Provisions not incorporated to states
-5th Right to Grand Jury
-8th Excessive Bail
Fourth Amendment (3 Categories of acceptable Searches and Seizures)
- Seizure, detention, arrest of persons
- Searches and seizures of evidentiary materials conducted pursuant to a valid warrant
- Warrantless searches and seizures
Unlawful Seizure of Persons
Law enforcement officer uses force or threat of force to detain a person, thereby causing the person to reasonably believe that they cannot freely leave the presence of officer (courts observe totality of circumstances, including reasonableness)
Two Types of Arrests
- Arrests made pursuant to an arrest warrant
- Warrantless searches
Most Severe form of governmental seizure under fourth amendment
Police use of deadly force against an individual
Based in totality of circumstances
a legal standard used to review arrests and seizures of persons and or property to determine whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion exists. Look at the big picture, actions of the officer, the words used, the location of the detention, the length of the detention or stop.
Reasonable Standard
Attempts to assess what a reasonable person would do or believe under the circumstances
Arrest
Seizure of an individual, by public official, taken into custody for criminal processing
Warrant
Court Order supported by probably cause authorizing law enforcement to arrest an individual
Home Arrest
Usually requires warrant; some circumstances of warrantless arrest
Cases of Warrantless Arrest
Hot Pursuit, Imminent Danger, Evidence Destruction, Suspect in Doorway, someone lets police in, Plain View
Probable Cause Standard
Sufficient, articulable, and trustworthy information to reasonably believe that a person has committed a crime; Not easily defined, depends on totality of circumstances
Do you need probable cause for a warrantless arrest
Yes-The suspect commits a felony in the officer’s presence
The officer is in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon
The officer needs to prevent the suspect’s escape or preserve evidence
Are the majority of arrests made with or without a warrant
The majority of arrests are made without a warrant as long as police officers have probable cause to believe a crime has been committee
Use of Deadly Force
Potentially deadly techniques to apprehend or stop an individual
When can a police officer use deadly force?
Imminent Danger and immediate necessity
Reasonable test standard for deadly force
officers can only use deadly force when they have a reasonable belief that a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to themselves or others, considering the totality of the circumstances in a given situation
Tennessee V Garner (1985)
Garner, a 15-year-old unarmed suspect who was fleeing after a burglary. The officer shot Garner in the back of the head after Garner began to climb a fence to escape; using deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect is a violation under the Fourth Amendment
Graham v Connor (1989)
Graham, a diabetic, fell over after exiting a convenience store and was handcuffed by officers, resulting in injury. Established the objective reasonableness standard for when law enforcement can use force on a suspect.
Objective Reasonableness Test
-severity of crime
-suspect poses an immediate threat to officers, self, or others
-suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight
Scott v Harris (2007)
The Court rules that a police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.
Terry Stops (Investigatory stops)
allow officers to briefly detain persons for legitimate investigative purposes, even when the officer does not have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred. (different from an arrest, must be reasonable and relatively brief)
Terry v Ohio
3 men stopped on reasonable suspicion of planned robbery (stopped and frisked)
Stop and Identify Laws
Stop and identify laws allow police to ask for identification from people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity
Motor Vehicle Stops
Generally speaking are based on probable cause or reasonable suspician
Traffic checkpoints; sobriety checkpoints
Are okay as long as police are not found discriminatory in their choice of vehicle.
Evidentiary Searches and Seizures
Searches and Seizures of places and things
Constitutional Factors of Search and Seizures
- Whether a search or seizure involves some type of substantial action
- Whether the search or seizure interferes with a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy
- Whether the government physically occupied someone’s private property for purposes of gathering evidence
Katz v United States
FBI monitored Katz phone booth conversations without warrant. SC sided with Katz stating his Fourth Amendment right to privacy was violated
Kyllo v United States (2001)
Suspicious that marijuana was being grown in petitioner Kyllo’s home in a triplex, agents used a thermal-imaging device to scan the triplex without a warrant. Found to be a violation of Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy
United States v Jones (2012)
Court found that a police department’s placement of a GPS tracking device on a man’s Jeep without his knowledge was a violation of the Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy
Open Fields Doctrine
Exception to requirement of search warrant for seizure if object is in open and public view
Warrant-based searches and seizures
Search warrant properly executed will be deemed reasonable and constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Validity of Search Warrant
-Based on probable cause
-issued by neutral judge or magistrate
-is sufficiently detailed describing the person or places to be searched and the items to be seized.
Proper execution of a warrant
-Must be fairly executed by law enforcement (must be a police officer as opposed to a private figure)
Four Corners Rule
The application must demonstrate on the paper of the warrant what the probable cause is (everything must be included) Verbal statements invalid
Franks v Delaware (1978)
Supported by probable cause or false or misleading statement; information on search warrant application was called into question
Knock and Announce
Requirement where police must knock and announce their presence; requesting the door be opened before they can gain entry
No Knock Warrants
Warrant giving permission to execute search without knocking
Good Faith Exception to Valid Warrant
Police make a small mistake in execution of warrant; can be excused if it can be proved it was in good faith
Warrantless Searches and Seizures (Exceptions)
-Search incident to a lawful arrest
-Consent Searches
-Plain View Searches
-Stop and Frisk Searches
Chimel v California (1969)
police officers arresting a person at his home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, but that police may search the area within immediate reach (wingspan) of the person without a warrant.
Protective Sweep
Law enforcement may search if they believe accomplices may threaten the safety of officers
Riley v California (2014)
required officers to obtain warrants for accessing the contents of cell phones found in a search, ensuring that searches of digital data are conducted within constitutional limits.
Consent Search
Individual gives express consent to be searched by Law Enforcement; considers age, intoxication, validity of consent, language barrier, mental capacity
Arizona v Hicks (1987)
Police entered a home in search of shooting suspect; while inside saw stereo equipment, suspected stolen, reads and records serial components (touching and moving them) defendants charged them with theft; SC invalidated search
Terry Search (Stop and Frisk)
Does not need a search warrant; if criminal contraband is found it is valid
Plain Feel Exception
As part of properly executed pat down; any drug paraphernalia etc found does not need a warrant to seize
Exigent Circumstances of Search and Seizure
-Hot Pursuit
-Public Safety (fire)
-Evidence may be destroyed or evaporate
-Vehicle Searches (PC)
-Border Searches
-School Searches
Evanescent Evidence Exception
Evidence may be destroyed or evaporated
New Jersey v TLO(1985)
New Jersey public school principal has the right to search a student’s purse without a warrant so long as the search is reasonable
Safford Unified School District v Redding
Savanna’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers. (Strip search)
Right against Self Incrimination (Fifth Amendment)
Provides individuals have a right against self-incrimination
Gov cannot coerce or force individuals to provide incriminating statements against themselves, including confessions, within a criminal context
Exceptions to Right to Self Incrimination
Does not preclude individuals from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily providing statements to government, nor does it prevent compelling of nonincriminating statements or cases where they do not face criminal liability (ONLY SPOKEN NOT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE) Does not protect other forms of evidence (blood, saliva, DNA, handwriting samples, tangible evidence) Person Must be within governmental custody and custodial interrogation before 5th amendment applies
Miranda Warnings
Prior to engaging in custodial interrogation, police must inform suspects of their constitutional rights if they wish to use evidence gathered during interrogations
Miranda Warnings Include
-Right to remain silent
-Anything you say can and will be used against them in court
-The right to an attorney
-If they cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for them
Lichtman Case (Miranda)
Psychologist counseled depression/anxiety; defrauded state health benefit plans approx 3.5 mil; Did not need miranda rights read; not custodial situation
Exclusionary Rule
Judicially created remedy for violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from a criminal trial
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Extends the exclusionary rule to all evidence obtained as a result of the initial piece of unconstitutionally obtained evidence
Independent Source Rule
If the police can show that the evidence was obtained by a source that is separate or independent from the originally tainted method, then it is an exception to the exclusionary rule and will be allowed
Intervening Circumstances Rule
Allows evidence to be admitted if new circumstances or events break the causal link between the illegal actions of the police and the ill-gotten evidence (Defendant voluntarily provides to the police evidence they had originally seized illegally then it may be admissible due to intervening confession)
Inevitable Discovery Rule
Gov can show that the evidence would have been obtained through other means
Right To Counsel (Fifth and Sixth Amendments)
Court interpreted 6th Amend applies after formal charges have been filed against a defendant; 5th Amend Right to Counsel during custodial interrogation can be present even before charges have been filed
Denial of Right to Counsel
If counsel is denied to an individual during a critical pretrial stage, any evidence gathered by the government as a result of such denial can be excluded
Waive Right to Counsel
Defendant has to show they are competent in the law or capable of representing themselves
Effective Assistance
Not just entitled to an attorney but to effective assistance of counsel; to prove a violation of right to counsel a defendant must show the attorney’s representation fell below objective standards of reasonableness
Custodial Interrogation
Law enforcement officer has detained someone for criminal investigation. Must Read Miranda Rights
Weeks v United States (1914)
Defendant arrested without warrant in MO for using mail to transport lottery tickets. SC ruled Fourth Amendment protects citizens from warrantless searches and seizures of private property.
Mapp v Ohio (1962)
Extends protections against search and seizure to state courts
Gideon v Wainwright (1963)
Gideon was charges and appeared in court without a lawyer, asking judge to appoint one. The SC ruled unanimously that the right to counsel is a fundamental right that applies to all criminal defendants.
Double Jeopardy
Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be tried for the same offense twice. A defendant may be tried in a criminal case and then later tried in civil proceedings and vice versa.
Dual Sovereignty Doctrine
Federal and state governments may try a person for the same act, and two or more states may try a person for the same act because they are separate sovereigns.
Exceptions to the right against double jeopardy
A person may be tried multiple times if the prior trial ended in a hung jury or the declaration of a mistrial, or their initial conviction was revered on appeal, or if they breach their terms of their plea agreement.
Hung Jury
jury that is unable to reach a verdict by the required voting margin
Hurricane Carter
Tried twice for the murders he was wrongly accused of, with both convictions eventually being overturned due to concerns about racial bias and prosecutorial misconduct; although they attempted to try him a third time, the case was ultimately dismissed.
Mistrial
Occurs when a jury is unable to reach a verdict and there must be a new trial with a new jury; can occur with procedural error, misconduct, or any circumstance which may result in an unfair trial.
Right to a Fair Trial
-Speedy and Public trial by impartial jury (for serious offenses with penalty of greater than 6 months) and the right to due process
Right to Confront Witness (6th)
Criminal defendants have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who have been presented against them during criminal proceedings.
Proportionality Doctrine
Punishment must fit crime
Proportionality of Punishment Considerations
Seriousness of the offense, severity of punishment proposed, type of sentences given to others with the same offense in the same jurisdiction
Cruel and Unusual Punishment Applies to
- Proportionality of Punishment
- Status Crimes
- Death Penalty
- Prison Conditions
Status Crimes
Character traits are generally a prohibited consideration; such as a persons status as a heroin addict
Death Penalty
Applied to adults who are convicted of directly committing murder
Harder job; Prosecutor or defense attorney?
Burden of Proof is on prosecutors to prove without a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed AND that the crime was committed by the defendant
Apprendi v NJ (2000)
Established the Apprendi Rule; Apprendi had increased penalties as it was proven his crime committed was motivated by racial hate; Fact Finding authority of judges in making enhanced sentencing decisions
Ring v Arizona (2002)
Supreme Court held that a defendant has the right to have a jury, rather than a judge, decide on the existence of an aggravating factor that makes the defendant eligible for the death penalty.
Blakely v Washington (2004)
Blakely pleaded guilty of his estranged wife. An exceptional sentence increase based on judge’s determination that Blakely acted with “deliberate cruelty” violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
State v Booker (2005)
Involved drug defendant whose sentence was increased by judge based on facts not found by the jury. Violation of Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury (Direct ruling based on Blakely v Washington) Federal Sentencing Guidelines are advisory not mandatory
Brady v Maryland
SC held prosecution’s suppression of evidence violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Batson v Kentucky
All white jury convicted Batson; challenged removal of non-white jurors as violating Sixth Amendment right to an Impartial Jury and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. SC affirmed convictions. (Cannot exclude jurors based solely on race).
