First Amendment Right Attorney Arizona by omd48029


More Info
									The SUPREME Court
 “The Republic endures and this is the
         symbol of its faith.”
        Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

         Little Known Fact:

The Supreme Court did not have its
     own building until 1935.

     That is 146 years after its
What is a “Landmark Case?”
• “A case that changes existing law or
  creates new laws.” (Alan Zegas, Esq.)

• “…cases that have had an impact on our
  rights as citizens.” (Bill of Rights Institute)

• Establishes PRECEDENT.
  – “A judicial decision that should be followed
    by a judge when deciding a later similar
    case.” (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law)
Let’s Take a Closer Look!
        • Marbury v. Madison (1803)

        • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

        • Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Marbury v. Madison: Important?

 • Established Supreme Court power of
   – “A constitutional doctrine that gives to a court
     system the power to annul legislative or
     executive acts which the judges declare to be
     unconstitutional.” (Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law)

 • Gives judicial branch powerful check
   against legislative and executive branches.
Who are Marbury and Madison?
• President John Adams commissions
  Marbury as justice of peace for D.C. right
  before leaving office.
• Secretary of State, John Marshall, does
  not deliver paperwork.
• Enter President Jefferson: orders new
  Secretary of State, James Madison, to
  ignore undelivered papers.
• Marbury sues Madison to try and get his
     And the Winner is…
• Supreme Court decides against Marbury.
• Chief Justice = John Marshall
  – The same guy that never gave Marbury his
    paperwork. Oops!
  – Relies on writ of mandamus (court order)
    granted by Judiciary Act of 1789.
• It is agreed that appointment was unfairly
  withheld from Marbury, but case needed to
  be heard by a lower court first.
Let’s Take a Closer Look!
        • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
          – Decided against Marbury

        • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

        • Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Miranda v. Arizona: Crime
• Fifth Amendment rights should be
  automatic upon arrest.
  – “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
    otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
    indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in
    the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
    actual service in time of war or public danger; nor
    shall any person be subject for the same offense to be
    twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
    compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
    himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law; nor shall private property
    be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Miranda v. Arizona: Crime
      • Sixth Amendment rights must be
        made known at time of arrest.
        – “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
          shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
          public trial, by an impartial jury of the
          state and district wherein the crime shall
          have been committed, which district shall
          have been previously ascertained by law,
          and to be informed of the nature and
          cause of the accusation; to be confronted
          with the witnesses against him; to have
          compulsory process for obtaining
          witnesses in his favor, and to have the
          assistance of counsel for his defense.”
    What was the Problem?
• Miranda arrested for
  kidnapping and rape.
• Identified by victim in lineup.
• Written confession after 2
  hours of questioning.
• Found guilty at trial.
• Miranda was Mexican
  immigrant, police never
  specifically informed him of
  his rights.
         Watch TV Lately?
•   The Arizona Supreme Court upholds the
•   Case goes to THE Supreme Court.
•   Ruling is overturned because Miranda was
    never told he could remain silent (5th) or obtain
    legal counsel (6th). Chief Justice = Earl Warren.

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against
   you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to an attorney.
4. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be
   appointed for you.
Let’s Take a Closer Look!
        • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
          – Decided against Marbury

        • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
          – Ruled in Miranda‟s favor

        • Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Texas v. Johnson: Speak Your Mind
• Protects First Amendment right to free
  – “Congress shall make no law respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
    free exercise thereof; or abridging the
    freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
    right of the people peaceably to assemble,
    and to petition the government for a redress
    of grievances.

• SYMBOLIC SPEECH and limits.
  – Burning the American Flag, a national symbol.
      GOP Convention, 1984
• Johnson protests Reagan Administration.
• Sets flag on fire in front of Dallas City Hall.
    – People find offensive.
    – TX law prohibits vandalizing respected
•   Convicted.
•   Goes to district Court of Appeals. LOST
•   Goes to TX Court of Appeals. WON
•   State of TX is not happy.
        Taking it to the Top
• State of TX asks the Supreme Court to hear the
  – They want to keep their law. Do not want flag
    desecration to be legal.

• Justice William Brennan writes majority.
  – “Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea
    [because it is] offensive.”

• Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissents.
  – The flag “is a visible symbol embodying our Nation. It
    does not represent the views of any particular political
    party, and it does not represent any particular political
    philosophy. The flag is not simply another „idea‟ or
    „point of view‟ competing for recognition in the
    marketplace of ideas.”
Let’s Take a Closer Look!
        • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
          – Decided against Marbury

        • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
          – Ruled in Miranda‟s favor

        • Texas v. Johnson (1989)
          – Johnson was within his
            Constitutional rights

To top