Court Cases Flashcards
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
- Marbury was appointed by Adams (Justice of Peace)
- Marshall denied appointment
- Madison Sued & lost
- Madison appealed to US Supreme Court and Lost
Judicial Act of 1789
- Checks and Balances
- Legislation may be Un-Constitutional
- Gives US Supreme Court power to review Laws (and toss them)
- Judicial Review is established
Illinois v. Perkins
Illinois v. Perkins (1990) - Cell mate (PO posing as a Cell mate) confessions - does not need to be read Miranda rights. Confession is admissible in court. - An exception to MIRANDA
1990 case where an undercover police officer was placed in Perkins’ jail cell (defendant was in jail on different charges) to see if a statement could be obtained on a murder charge. Unaware the ‘inmate’ was a police officer, and without any Miranda warnings, Perkins made a statement admitting the killing, and his statement was used against him. Conviction affirmed. Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect is not aware he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement.
Katz v. United States
- Zone of Privacy
- Expectation of Privacy (ex Personal Vehicle)
- “Phone Booth” recording device
- FBI case was thrown out (no warrant, violated 4th Amendment)
- Katz was a bookie (Book Making - Illegal Betting)
1967 case where FBI agents attached an electronic listening device to the outside of a telephone booth that Katz used to make gambling calls. The Court found the 4th Amendment applied to this electronic eavesdropping, and that there was an expectation of privacy zone, even though the agents did not themselves enter into any room or structure. There must be a subjective expectation of privacy and society must be willing to recognize the expectation as reasonable.
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
- 4th Amendment Violation
- “The Exclusionary Rule”
- “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine
- Unreasonable Search and Seizure
- False Search Warrant (looking for bombs and found pornography)
- Dolly Mapp wouldn’t allow access w/o a warrant, they get warrant and don’t find a bomb but pornography instead. Don’t have a warrant, leave, and come back saying they have a warrant. FALSE. The “Warrant” could not be produced at trial, and case was thrown out via the Exclusionary Rule.
1961 case. Bombing making investigation. Police desired to search Dolly Mapp’s home for a suspect, but she refused their entry without a search warrant. Three hours later they forced their way in, at one time showing a supposed warrant which was never again seen. They found no bomber, but did locate pornography. After her conviction she appealed and the U. S. Supreme Court reversed, embracing the Exclusionary Rule, which is designed to deter illegal police conduct where unreasonable searches or seizures take place. Fourth Amendment at work.
Terry v. Ohio
“Terry Stop” - Stop and Frisk
1968 case which established a search of a lesser level of intrusiveness. Longtime Detective McFadden watched Terry and two associates walking back and forth peering into a store window, and formed an opinion he was later able to articulate in court that they were going to hold up the store. He temporarily detained them for the purpose of a stop and frisk, a pat down search of the outer clothing for weapons only.
Pat Down Searches: Cannot go into their pockets, unless you ask them: “What is this in your pocket?”, A: “Its a bag of marijuana..” - Now you have PC (Probable Cause) and can retrieve / arrest.
Brady v. Maryland
Brady v. Maryland (1963)
- 3 years before Miranda
- 2 guys charged with Murder
- Brady is charged 1st
- Prosecutor doesn’t give Boblit’s statements to Brady.
- Brady was not the shooter.
- MD Court of Appeals granted new trial for Punishment only USSCT held failure to disclose evidence for guilt ro punishment violates due process
- Outcome is you must share all evidence
(Does not include: Prosecutors Notes, Prepared Statements)
Robbery and homicide death penalty appeal in 1963 where Brady conceded guilt but asked to be spared the death penalty. He and his attorney were not provided a pretrial statement by his codefendant Boblit, wherein Boblit admitted doing the killing, until after the trial and sentence had been affirmed on appeal. The Court ruled that due process requires the prosecution to provide evidence favorable to the accused whether material to guilt or punishment. Good faith will not help the prosecution.
Williams v. Florida
Williams v. Florida
Alibi Witness - Not always truthful
Must be disclosed to Prosecution (Witness must have name, address, etc)
- allows for verification of witness
- Can determine if defendant was at the scene of the crime
Brady v. United States
Brady v. United States (1970)
- Counsel is required during the plea bargaining process
Done at Arraignment, PH, before trial
USSCT approved
Good or bad?
- Good: Saves Money, Saves Time, Makes the system move - It is bad, because the defendant does less time.
-Happens all the time in Drug Cases (Pleas to all counts, but reduces time (punishment) - Dismiss some of the charges)
May be done in a case where the Prosecutor has some issues with proving the the case, may choose to reduce charges in order to secure a conviction.
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
- Procedural safeguards, including the right to counsel, must be followed at custodial interrogation to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
In 1966 this case was decided; Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnap, rape and robbery. He confessed in police custody following several hours of interrogation. The US Supreme Court reversed his conviction and said: “We hold that when an individual is taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom . . . the privilege against self-incrimination is jeopardized . . . . He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has a right to an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.“
Escobedo v. Illinois
Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)
- The defendant has the right to counsel during the course of any police interrogation.
*Setup MIRANDA (1966)
1964 case; pre-Miranda. This defendant was interrogated for several hours at a police station, and he repeatedly requested to speak to his attorney (who was also at the station asking to see his client). The police refused, and ultimately got him to confess to a homicide. The Court reversed his conviction and ruled he was denied his 6th Amendment right to counsel (prior to being charged with a crime); the confession could not be used at his trial. The Court said, without this, a trial would be little more than an appeal from the interrogation, and the right to an attorney at trial would be “a very hollow thing if, for all practical purposes, the conviction is already assured by pretrial examination.”
Boykin v. Alabama
Boykin v. Alabama (1969)
1969 case where the Court ruled a defendant must be informed and waive certain rights, such as the right against self-incrimination, trial by jury, to confront witnesses, (subsequently, compulsory process and representation by counsel). Additionally that the defendant be advised of the consequences of his plea, to include the maximum time of incarceration, period of probation (or parole), and registration, if any. Written forms are used in California called Tahl forms.
Barker v. Wingo
Barker v. Wingo (1972)
Over a five year delay between arrest and trial was not too long, and no 6th Amendment speedy trial right was violated, the US Supreme Court ruled in this 1972 case. Many continuances were requested and granted without objection while Barker’s co-defendant was tried and re-tried. Finally the sheriff was ill and further delays occurred. Although this was a very long time, objections were not timely made and there was very minimal prejudice to Barker.
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980)
A First Amendment public right of access to a trial exists, in addition to the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right. In 1980 the Court ruled that even though the defendant requested the closed trial (to avoid interference by spectators who had created mistrials three previous times), the media had a right to be present. Certain portions of a trial may be closed, if necessitated by a compelling state interest, however. See Globe Newspapers Co.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
- Indigent defendant has right to free counsel (felony cases) - 14th Amendment (Due Process Clause)
1963 case that extended the right to appointed counsel to all felony charges (not just capital cases as under Powell v. Alabama). Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in Florida and asked that a lawyer be appointed to represent him, but the court refused, saying that could only be done for capital cases. His conviction was reversed. 6th and 14th Amendment rights.
Weeks v. United States
Weeks v. United States (1914)
