Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

z ccjs345 > court cases > Flashcards

court cases Flashcards

1
Q

marbury v. madison

A
  • established judicial review
  • “province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

wren v. united states

A
  • supported packer’s crime control model
  • police stop in trinidad didn’t violate 4th amendment because police can use intuition, training & training to make stops
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

mapp v. ohio

A
  • supported warren’s due process model
  • exclusionary rule/fruit of the poisonous tree
  • evidence obtained in illegal searches is inadmissable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

plessy v. ferguson

A
  • ‘separate but equal’
  • overruling a precedent
  • overruled by brown v. board
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

booth v. maryland

A
  • distinguising a precedent
  • victim impact statements not allowed in DP sentencing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

dc v. heller

A
  • rights of individuals to maintain handguns
  • if gun regulation implicates 2nd amendment it’s subject to rational basis standard of review
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

mcdonald v. chicago

A
  • incorporated 2nd amendment into states, did not address regulations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

ny state rifle and piston ass. v. bruen

A
  • 2nd amendmnet protects public right to carry firearms
  • established new test that includes first of heller test
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

bordenkircher v. hayes

A
  • decision to prosecute, what charges to file, and whether to convene grand jury lies with the prosecutor
  • decision is not reviewable by courts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

powell v. alabama

A
  • free counsel when indigent defendent is charged with a capital offense
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

johnson v. zerbst

A
  • federal government must provide free counsel for all indigent defendants
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

gideon v. wainwright

A
  • right to counsel incorporated into states
  • counsel must be afforded to indigent at no personal cost
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

arsinger v. hamlin

A
  • clarified Gideon
  • right to counsel only applies when there is threat of imprisonment
  • counsel applies to all states of CJS process
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

strickland v. washington

A
  • assistance of counsel must be effective
  • counsel must apply to appellate attorneys
  • established conflict checks
  • petitioner must prove counsel was ineffective & denied 6th amendment right, deficiency must be unreasonable
  • reasonable probability that if not for mistakes, outcome would be different
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

mcmann v. richardson

A
  • effective assistance means any legal advice ‘in the range of competence’ demanded by attorneys in criminal cases
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

williams v. taylor

A
  • to prove ineffective assistance at sentencing you need to show reasonable probability that sentencing outcome would be different
  • hard since judges work within guidelines
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

lee v. united states

A
  • lee argued ineffective becuase lawyer did the one thing he didn’t want (he pled guilty & was deported)
  • attorney admitted error and court decided outcome would have been different
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

tumey v. ohio

A
  • right to due process violated if judge has direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in a case
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

dugan v. ohio

A
  • challenged judge who was a memeber of city comissions, decides city finances, pretty big financial issue
  • judge was not disqualified
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

strauder v. west virginia

A
  • SC ruled 14th amendment gives everyone right to citizenship including jury duty right
  • prohibited states from enacting legislating banning black people from juries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

avery v. georgia

A
  • clerk had jurors on notecards based on race, decided juries wtih notecards
  • SC said it was unconstitutional
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

swainn v. alabama

A
  • you have to prove that there is a systematic exclusion of black jurors through preemptory challenges (very hard) (Marian Berry)
  • first case to address black jurors & preemptory challenges
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

amadeo v. zant

A
  • clerks didn’t put black individuals in jury pools
  • SC struck down process of eliminating/tokenizing balck people in pools
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

batson v. kentucky

A
  • batson challenges
  • defendant has a prima facie case for discrimination
  • excluder has to provide court with race neutral explanation for why each juror is excluded
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

maryland v. craig

A
  • 6th amendment does not provide face to face confrontation
  • confrontation of accuser can be modified due to public policy need and where testimony reliabiltiy is ensured by ability to cross-examine witness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

carter v. kentucky

A
  • defendant can tell judge to tell jury not to infer anthing based on defendant’s failure to testify
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

wolfe v. united states

A
  • marital privilege upheld by SC, it should withstand challenge to the administration of justice
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

daubert v. merrel dow

A
  • judges are responsible for assessing validity of expert witness competency
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

arizona v. fulminate

A
  • false confessions may be considered harmelss error and is not immediate grounds for an appeal
  • admission of a coerced confession can be considered erroneous admission of other types of evidence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

crawford v. washington

A
  • statement made out of court may not be used unless it meets hearsay exception or defendant has ability to cross-examine witness
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

commonwealth v. battis

A
  • black man facing DP pled guilty, court examined his mental state
  • he was allowed to plead guilty, but courts didn’t like it
32
Q

edwards v. michigan

A
  • Michigan statute regarding guilty pleas
  • outlawed sentencing promises or concessions of defense by proseuctor
33
Q

santobello v. new york

A
  • if you’re promised anything that induces you to cooperate, that promise must be fulfilled
34
Q

united states v. ammidown

A
  • supreme court said judge cannot reject plea agreements unless it’s determined prosecutor abused discretion
35
Q

mcculloch v. maryland

A
  • established doctrine of unenumerated powers, counterbalancing originalism
  • congress & executve branch have powers not explicitly stated in constitution and those powers allow them to run the country
36
Q

in re kemmler

A
  • death is only cruel or unusual when it involves torture or lingering death
37
Q

trop v. dulles

A
  • death penalty has been used through history and cannot be said to violate consittuion
  • to some degree, whether or not we accept it, evolving standards of decency will affect whether or not we view it as cruel
38
Q

furman v. georgia

A
  • said the way the death penalty was being applied was arbitrary & discriminatory against non-white
  • everybody on death row under those procedures has sentences commuted
39
Q

gregg v. georgia

A
  • death penalty cases need to have bifurcataed trials
  • in secondary hearing, jury must hear aggravting & mitigating factors
40
Q

coker v. georgia

A
  • applying DP to rape cases of adult women without murder is disproportionate to crime
41
Q

eberheart v. georgia

A
  • imposition of DP on kidnapping without murder cases is disproportionate
42
Q

ring v. arizona

A
  • jury must be the one to deterime agravating circumstances necessary for imposition of DP
43
Q

kennedy v. louisiana

A
  • applying DP in child rape cases without murder is disproportionate to crime
44
Q

atkins v. virginia

A
  • unconstitutional to execute defendants with cognitive/developmental limitations at the time of the crime
45
Q

roper v. simmons

A
  • can’t execute someone who was under 18 atht the time of the crime
46
Q

mcclesky v. kemp

A
  • black man used Baldus study to prove DP was unconstitutional under 14th amendment
  • court found study valid, but sayd mcclesky had to prove discrimination in his particular case
47
Q

united states v. nixon

A
  • prosecutor subpoenaed nixon, but he used executive order to say no
  • 8-0 decision said defendents had a right to exculpatory evidence unless it compromises national security directly
48
Q

apprendi v. new jersey

A
  • if you want to enhance a sentence because of a hate crime you must find that and prove it prior to conviction
  • any factor used to determine seriousness of a case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt
49
Q

cuningham v. california

A
  • if judges want to enhance senteces due to aggravating factors the factors must be proven beyond all reasoable doubt (not preponderance of evidence)
50
Q

united states v. booker

A
  • united states v. fanfan
  • court ruled in booker-fanfan decision that sentencing gulideines are advisory, not mandatory
51
Q

alleyne v. united states

A
  • any fact used to support guideline departure has to be sumbitted to the jury & decided beyond all reasonable doubt or admitted to by the defendent
52
Q

ashe v. swenson

A
  • when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgement, the issue cannot be litigated again
53
Q

griffin v. illinois

A
  • indigent defendent filing appeal on his own, could not afford trial transcripts
  • trial transcripts have to be given to the defendant and be provided free of charge
54
Q

douglas v. california

A
  • right to counsel extended to appeal under 5th and 14th amendment
55
Q

nc v. pierce
blackledge v. perry

A
  • the state cannot retaliate against a defendant after a successfula peal with harsher sentences, etc.
56
Q

boykin v. alabama

A
  • a plea cannot be appealed if it was made voluntaryily, knowlingly, ad intelligently
  • also cannot be appealed if there was effective counsel during the process
57
Q

talit v. henderson

A
  • a plea made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently cannot be appealed based on actions of prosecutor before the plea was taken (brady violations, illegal searches)
58
Q

cohen v. beneficial industrial loan corporation

A
  • interlocutory appeals are reserved for rights that are asserted in the action that are too important to be denied
59
Q

chauvin case

A
  • charged with multiple crimes including 3rd degree
  • court found he could not be tried on 3rd
  • appealed trial judges and won, was tried with 3rd
60
Q

stack v. boyle

A
  • SC found a defendant’s appeal of bail could be interlocutory
  • only bail that is necesasry to ensure the presence of the defenant at trial
61
Q

abney v. united states

A
  • dismissal of the indictment or a denial of a dismissal could be ground for interlocutory appeal
62
Q

rita v. united states

A
  • sentences within the range of sentencing guidelines have a presumption of reasonableness
  • to prove it was unreasonable defendants have to overcome presumption
63
Q

kimbrough v. united states

A
  • departing from the guidelines is permissable if the judge states on the record that they have a policy disagreement with the guidelines
64
Q

bozza v. united states

A
  • sustaining an appeal of the sentence does not mean the defendant escapes all punishment, only the sentence is modified
65
Q

gitlow v. new york

A
  • speech is not protected if it is not an essential element of the exposition of ideas & are of such slight value as a step to tuth that any benefit derviced is outweighted by the social interest in order & morality
66
Q

california v. hurtado

A
  • right to a grand jury has never been incorporated into states
  • denial of a grand jury is not a violation of due process
67
Q

barker v. wingow

A
  • decision outlined unnecessary delay
  • congress went further with speedy trial act of 1974 - 100 days from arrest to trial
68
Q

north carolina v. alford

A
  • established alford plea
  • pleading guilt while maintaining innocence
  • plea due to avoid worse punishment
  • undermines CJS
69
Q

united states v. rahimi

A
  • originalism, is banning DV/protective order individuals from owning guns unconstitutional
  • 5th circuit supported rahimi’s argument, case went to SC
70
Q

clinton v. jones

A
  • 9-0 said that presidential immunity does not extend to civil litigation except for highly unusual cases
71
Q

brandon byrd case

A
  • cannot limit speech based on mere advocacy of force/violence, and govt. employees have limited freedoms in this matter
72
Q

brady v. maryland

A
  • prosecutor’s offuce must turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense (including things that undermine witness credibility)
  • some states require reciprocal discovery
73
Q

abney v. united states

A
  • dismissal of indictment or denial of dismissal could be grounds for interlocutory appeal
74
Q

faye v. noia

A
  • detainment/incarceration has to conform with fundamental requirements of law, and if it does not you’re entitled to immediate release
  • reestablishes correctional system’s duty to respond to the judiciary
75
Q

mckane v. durston

A
  • the appellate process is not included in the constitutional requirement of due process

z ccjs345 (1 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions