CHAPTER 3 Notes (Understand these are notes from last year... her test could be different this year so READ YOUR CHAPTER!!!!!!
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2mk7v8cXovLWksyU0NNbkU2LUk/edit?usp=sharing
Chapter 3 PowerPoint
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2mk7v8cXovLVDdfUUt0Ymx6RGs/edit?usp=sharing
Here are some cases that we have been talking about during class:
1.
SHEPPARD v MAXWELL
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 14th Amendment, Due process Clause
SUMMARY: Dr.
Samuel Sheppard was convicted of murdering his wife in a trial widely covered
by national news media. Sheppard appealed his conviction, claiming that the
pretrial publicity had made it impossible to get a fair trial.
RULING:
In favor of Shappard. The Court rejected the arguments about “press freedom,”
and overturned his conviction, and ordered a new trial. As a result of the
Sheppard decision, some judges have issued “gag” orders limiting pretrial
publicity.
2.
DALE v BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: First Amendment's expressive associational right
SUMMARY:
A Homosexual boy scouts leader sued the Boy Scouts of America when they would
not let him be a leader anymore.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled that a private organization such as the Boy Scouts of
America (BSA) can exclude a person from membership when "the presence of
that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public
or private viewpoints. The Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality
is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals
as adult leaders would interfere with that message.
3.
MIRANDA v ARIZONA
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 5th Amendment (Rights of the accused)
SUMMARY:
Arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault, Ernesto Miranda signed a confession
including a statement that he had “full knowledge of [his] legal rights…” After
conviction, he appealed, claiming that without counsel and without warnings,
the confession was illegally gained.
RULING: In
favor of Miranda. The Court agreed with Miranda that “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 the right to… an
attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for
him…” Miranda firmly upheld citizen rights to fair trials in State
courts.
4.
GIDEON v WAINWRIGHT:
RELATE TO AMENDMENT: 6th Amendment, right to counsel
SUMMARY:
In 1961 a Florida court found Clarence Earl Gideon guilty of breaking and
entering and sentenced him to five years in prison. Gideon appealed his case to
the Supreme Court on the basis that he had been unconstitutionally denied counsel
(a lawyer) during his trial due to Florida’s policy of only providing appointed
counsel in capital cases.
RULING:
The Court ruled in favor of GIDEON. The Court granted Gideon a new trial, and
he was found not guilty with the help of a court-appointed attorney. The
“Gideon Rule” upheld the 6th Amendment’s guarantee of counsel of all
poor persons facing a felony charge, a further incorporation of Bill of Rights
guarantees into State constitutions.
5.
PLESSY v FERGUSON
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause
SUMMARY:
The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for
blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths
Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train.
He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested. Plessy sued
saying his 14th amendments were violated.
RULING:
The court ruled against Plessy and in favor of Ferguson. The Court held that
segregation was permitted if facilities were equal.
6.
VERNONIA v ACTON
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 4th and 14th Amendment (Search and
Seizure, Equal protection clause)
SUMMARY:
James Acton wanted to play sports in high school, but for him to be able to try
out his parents had to sign a consent form. The consent form would allow the
school to drug test him at any time. Since he didn’t sign a consent form, he
couldn’t play sports. He sued the Vernonia school district.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Vernonia school district and said they
could require a consent form to play sports.
7.
BROWN v BOARD OF EDUCATION:
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause
SUMMARY:
A 10-year-old Topeka girl, Linda Brown, was not permitted to attend her
neighborhood school because she was an African American. Her family sued the
board of education.
RULING:
The court ruled in favor of Brown.
8.
MAPP v OHIO
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 4th and 14th illegal evidence and Due
process clause
SUMMARY:
Admitting evidence gained by illegal searches was permitted by some states
before MAPP. Cleveland police raided Dollree Mapp’s home without a warrant and
found obscene materials. She appealed her conviction saying that the 4th
and 14th amendment protected her against improper police behavior.
RULING:
MAPP won and the court agreed with her, extending “exclusionary rule” protects
citizens in state courts.
9.
KOREMATSU V US
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause
SUMMARY:
In 1942, Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 allowing the US
military to declare parts of the US as military areas and thereby exclude
specific groups of people from them. The practical application was that many
Japanese-Americans were forced from their homes and placed in internment camps
during World War II. Frank Korematsu, a US-born man of Japanese descent,
knowingly defied the order to be relocated, was arrested, and convicted. His
case went to the Supreme Court where it was decided that exclusion orders based
on Executive Order 9066 were in fact constitutional. Therefore, his conviction
was upheld.
RULING: IN favor of America, against Korematsu.
10.
ROE v WADE
RELATES TO AN AMENDMENT: 9th Amendment, right to privacy
SUMMARY:
A Texas woman challenged a State law forbidding the artificial termination of a
pregnancy, saying that she “had a fundamental right to privacy.” To have an
abortion or not.
RULING:
In favor of ROE. The Court upheld a woman’s right to choose in this case,
saying the patient is free to determine, without regulation by the State,
that... the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated” if in the first
trimester. The decision struck down the State regulation of abortion in the
first three months of pregnancy and was modified by Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern PA v. Casey, 1992.
11.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
v BAKKE
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT:
14th Amendment, Equal Protection Clause.
SUMMARY:
The case involved the admissions
practices of the Medical School of the University of California at Davis. The
medical school reserved 16 out of 100 seats in its entering class for
minorities, including "Blacks," "Chicanos," "Asians,"
and "American Indians." Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was twice
denied admission to the medical school even though his MCAT scores, GPA, and
benchmark scores were "significantly higher" than those of some
minority applicants recently admitted. Bakke sued the University of California
in a state court, alleging that the medical school's admission policy violated
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 14th Amendment. The
California Supreme Court agreed, finding that the quota system explicitly
discriminated against racial groups and holding that "no applicant may be
rejected because of his race, in favor of another who is less qualified, as
measured by standards applied without regard to race." The medical school,
ordered to shut down its quota system, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which reviewed the case in 1978.
RULING:
Ruled in favor of Bakke by finding the school's special admissions program
unconstitutional because of its use of quotas and that Bakke should be
admitted.
1.
WEEKS v UNITED STATES:
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: Fourth Amendment (Search and Seizure)
SUMMARY:
Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers, which were used to
convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done
without a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned
for the return of his private possessions.
RULING:
Ruled in favor of WEEKS. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the
seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional
rights. The Court also held that the government's refusal to return Weeks'
possessions violated the Fourth Amendment. To allow private documents to be
seized and then held as evidence against citizens would have meant that the
protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against
such searches and seizures would be of no value whatsoever. This was the first
application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary
rule."
2.
DRED SCOTT v SANFORD:
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 5th Amendment, individual rights and the 14th
amendment Equal Protection Clause)
SUMMARY:
This decision upheld property rights over human rights by saying that Dred
Scott, a slave, could not become a free man just because he had traveled to
“free soil” States with his master.
RULING:
Against Dred Scott.
3.
ROPER V SIMMONS:
RELATE TO AN AMENDMENT: 6th Amendment, Speedy and fair trial and 8th
Amendment, Cruel and Unusual Punishment)
SUMMARY:
A juvenile offender
was convicted of murder at age 17 and then sentenced to the death penalty the
following year despite having been under 18 at the time of the offence (the
crime)
RULING: The death penalty may not be imposed for
offences committed before reaching age 18 because doing so would violate the
U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment