Docstoc

Sup Ct cases

Document Sample
Sup Ct cases Powered By Docstoc
					CASE                         FACTS                             CONSTITUTIONAL            DECISION                       SIGNIFICANCE
                                                               QUESTIONS
RELIGION                     NY Brd of Regents established     1st Amendment -           Prayer Unconstitutional 6-1    Prayer is religious activity
Engel v. Vitale, 1962        official prayer.           Not    Establishment of Religion
                             Compulsory
RELIGION                     Penn law required reading 10      1st Amendment -           Reading Unconstitutional 6-3   Reading is religious activity.
Pennsylvania v Schempp,      versus from Bible.                Establishment of Religion                                Reading not neutral.
1962                         Not compulsory.                                                                            Two pronged test
                                                                                                                        1 advancement
                                                                                                                        2 inhibition
RELIGION                     Penn provides money for books, 1st Amendment -           "Some" aid Unconstitutional       Three pronged test
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971      materials, and salaries for    Establishment of Religion because it requires excessive     1 secular purpose               2
                             parochial schools              Free exercise             entanglement (salaries) 8-0       neither advances nor inhibits
                                                                                                                        religion                       3
                                                                                                                        excessive govt entanglement

EXPRESSION                   Miller convicted of violating     1st Amendment -           Law constitutional.            3 Tests
Miller v. California, 1973   California obscenity laws         Expression                Obscenity beyond 1st Amend     1 Appeals to prurient interest
                                                                                         protection                     2 Sexual conduct as
                                                                                                                        prescribed by law
                                                                                                                        3 lacks literary, artistic,
                                                                                                                        political, scientific value
                                                                                                                        (local control)
EXPRESSION                   Fraser suspended fro delivering   1st - does expression     Suspension constitutional.     Allowed schools more freedom
Bethel v. Fraser, 1986       speech filled with sexual         extend to students        Freedom does not extend to     to control.
                             references and innuendos                                    school
                                                                                         **"material and substantial
                                                                                         disruption"
EXPRESSION                   Johnson convicted for burning     1st - Expression limits   Law constitutional.            Expression, especially
Texas v Johnson, 1989        flag - violation of Texas law                               Cannot suppress because        political, is protected
                                                                                         offensive
                             Due Process - process which is owed to you

CASE                         FACTS                              CONSTITUTIONAL             DECISION                        SIGNIFICANCE
                                                                QUESTIONS
DUE PROCESS - JUV        In Juvenile punished for obscene       24th - Due Process         Conviction unconstitutional.  Minimum Rights:
re Gault, 1967              phone call. No Due Process:         (Minors)                   Some due process extends to   -notice of charges
                            -legal counsel                      Does 14th extend to        juveniles                     -attorney
                            -charges                            Juveniles                                                -cross witnesses
                            -5th Amend (Silent)                                                                          -confront accuser
                            -Appeal                                                                                      -silent/speak
DUE PROCESS - JUV           Students suspended for              14th Due Process &         suspension w/out hearing      Susp Rts:
Goss v. Lopez, 1975         protesting. No hearing held         Equal protection           unconstitutional. Min due     1 Notice of Charges
                                                                                           process standards             2. present evidence if denied
                                                                                                                         3. student present his side
                                                                                                                         (emergency temp susp)
SEARCH                       Mapp convicted for possession      4th Search/Seizure         Unconst obtained evidence     Bill of Rts (4th) extend to
Mapp v. Ohio, 1962           of porn material. Evidence         14th - state               cannot be admitted in state   protection from states.
                             obtained through search without    (unconstitutionally        court.                        **"exclusionary rule" applied to
                             warrant                            obtained evidence)                                       states.
SELF INCRIM/COUNSEL          (Iowa) Williams convicted of       5th - Self-incrim          7-2 evidence const used since "inevitable" discovery is
Nix v. Williams, 1984        murder with confession made        6th - right to counsel     it would have been found      exception to exclusionary rule.
                             w/out counsel. Volunteered info                               anyway.
                             w/out coercion
SEARCH                       Evidence seized in the trash bag   4th Amend - Search         Evidence legally obtained 6-2   privacy surrendered outside
California v. Greenwood,     used to obtain warrant to search   Limits of exclusionary                                     "curtilage" of home
1988                         house for narcotics                rule
SELF INCRIM/COUNSEL          Escobedo interrogated regarding    6th - Does attorney have   Evidence obtained w/out         Escobedo Rule - Not
Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964   murder. Asked for attorney, was    to be present.             counsel when asked for is       admissible if: (All 3)
                             denied - made incriminating        5th - does coercion        inadmissible                    1. questioned as suspect
                             statements                         violate 5th protection                                     2. police custody -
                                                                                                                           interrogation
                                                                                                                           3. requested and denied
                                                                                                                           lawyer
TRIAL                     Sheppard tried and convicted for 6th - Fair and impartial        8-1 Overturned conviction       judge can control all aspect of
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 1966 murder with pre-trial publicity. jury                                                            trial. 6th outweighs 1st.
                          Circus Court

                             Foundational Principles of Criminal Justice System: 1. Presumption of Innocence 2. Burden of Proof on Govt
                           Compelling interest of Govt
CASE                       FACTS                              CONSTITUTIONAL            DECISION                             SIGNIFICANCE
                                                              QUESTIONS
PRIVACY                   Planned Parenthood guilty of        1,3,4,5 & 9th - Implied   law unconstitutional - violates      "zone of privacy" recognized.
Griswold v. Conn, 1965    giving info, instruction and advice privacy                   right to privacy                     Used in future cases (Roe)
                          regarding birth control to married
                          couples
PRIVACY               Roe Texas law prohibiting termination 1,3,4,5 & 9th - does law    law violates privacy (in first 90    "compelling point" (90 days)
v. Wade, 1973             of pregnancy appealed               invade privacy            days)                                established
                                                                                        postnatal - person                   Left open when life or
                                                                                        prenatal - application unclear       compelling point begins
PRIVACY                    Missouri law prohibits               privacy vs compelling   law constitutional in part:      -   Some control given to states
Webster v Reproductive     abortion/life at conception/no       interest                public funding                  -
Health Services, 1989      public funds/tests to determine if                           2nd trimester
                           fetus viable
PRIVACY                    Cruzan on life support after         Privacy vs family       uphold Missouri law requiring living wills.
Cruzan v Missouri          accident. Family wanted her          sovereignty             clear and convincing evidence
                           removed                                                      of wishes

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:7/22/2012
language:
pages:3