LANDMARK CASES LAST 2 Flashcards
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept of Health (SCOTUS 1990) FOTC
- Cruzan PVS 2/2 MVA, gastrostomy tube for food/hydration
- Hospital refused parents’ request to w/d w/o court order
- State court authorized, finding Cruzan had right to w/d death-prolonging
- Expression to former housemate wouldn’t want to continue if “vegetable”
- Taken to MO SC
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept of Health (SCOTUS 1990) MO SC Decision (2)
- Reversed, declined to read from constitution right to privacy supporting unrestricted RTRT
- State Living Will statute state policy strongly favoring preservation of life, Cruzan’s statements to housemate unreliable for determining intent
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept of Health (SCOTUS 1990) Issues (2)
- Whether Cruzan has right under US Const to direct w/d of life sustaining tx
- If so, whether state may require CACE SOP that w/d of tx is what she would’ve wanted
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept of Health (SCOTUS 1990) H
US Const doesn’t forbid MO from requiring CACE for incompetent’s wishes to w/d life-sustaining tx
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept of Health (SCOTUS 1990) R (Balance, SOP, Erroneous Decision, Substituted Judgment)
- Balance is 14th A’s liberty interest in unwanted medical tx vs. relevant state interests
- CACE chosen by MO reasonable bc termination of life is particularly important civil matter, so can be same SOP as those
- More strict SOP means that party bears more of erroneous decision, and this is particularly severe erroneous decision bc irreversible (whereas alternative, status quo, is reversible)
- 14th A Doesn’t require state to accept “substituted judgment” of family in absence of substantial proof of pt’s views
Cruzan v. Director, MO Dept of Health (SCOTUS 1990) Dissent (3)
- Biased and impermissibly burdened against R to be free from unwanted tx
- CACE asymmetrical bc didn’t require proof of wanting to continue tx
- Rejected status quo results in safer/better decision, robs her of exact purpose of right against unwanted tx
Ring v. Arizona (SCOTUS 2002) FOTC & Issue
- Ring connected to robbery/murder, unclear, but ultimately decided (by judge) of actually pulling trigger
- AZ authorizes death penalty if at least 1 agg circumstance and no mitigating circumstances
- Judge found 2 aggravating factors and sentenced to death
- Ring appealed, arguing AZ’s capital sentencing violated 6th and 14th A bc entrusted to judge fact finding raising to death penalty
ISSUE: Does AZ state allowing judge to determine necessary agg factors for death penalty violate 6th A right to trial by jury?
Ring v. Arizona (SCOTUS 2002) H & R (Historical, Ultimate R)
H: Reversed/remanded. Death sentence w/ agg factors determined by judge violates 6th trial by jury
R:
- 2 previous SCOTUS cases had found entirely opposite rulings on this matter
- So had to re-decide, basically said this finding of agg circumstance by a judge exposed Ring to greater punishment than authorized by G verdict, so essentially add’l conviction, so violates 6th A TbJ
Ring v. Arizona (SCOTUS 2002) Dissent
- Previous rule that any fact that increases max penalty must be tx as element of the crime isn’t required by Constitution or prior cases
- Also warned of “severely destabilizing effect” on CJS (tbf, could affect nearly 800 cases that utilized judge in sentencing)
Jablonski v. US (COA 1983) FOTC
- Jablonski tx at VA, hx of raping/violent actions towards ex wife, dx ASPD and “potentially dangerous”
- Didn’t seek previous records which would’ve shown violence towards women
- Told gf to leave; she did but kept contact
- Offered vol hosp, declined, didn’t pursue invol hosp
- Trial court ruled against, citing lack of records as below SOC
Jablonski v. US (COA 1983) H & Result
H: Upheld.
Result: Expanded foreseeability (by getting records) and failure to protect targets of violence that should’ve been known
