flashcard

1 / 40
Front
Witherspoon v. Illinois
❮ prev next ❯
1 / 40
Back
1968 Supreme Court decision that ruled that a "death-qualified" jury was unconstitutional. The state had chosen a jury by systematically excluding all prospective jurors who had any scruples against capital punishment. This was the first indication that the death penalty might be in trouble. p433, 447
❮ prev next ❯

terms list

Witherspoon v. Illinois
1968 Supreme Court decision that ruled that a "death-qualified" jury was unconstitutional. The state had chosen a jury by systematically excluding all prospective jurors who had any scruples against capital punishment. This was the first indication that the death penalty might be in trouble. p433, 447
Williams v. Florida
Court ruled that it was proper for states to use juries composed of as few as 6 persons, at least in non-capital cases. p394
Weems v. United States
Ruling that a sentence disproportionate of the offense is in violation of the 8th Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment. Stated that a punishment must fit the crime. p432
United States v. Leon
Supreme court held that the exclusionary rule was meant to deter unlawful police actions, not punish the errors of magistrates. Established the "good faith exception" to the exclusionary rule, that states that even though police engaged in an unlawful search & seizure, if they engaged in good faith, the Supreme Court provides the opportunity for the trial court to not necessarily exclude the evidence.
United States v. Calandra
Supreme Court ruling that stated that the exclusionary rule (which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in trials) "is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard 4th Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effects rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved." p247, 382
Terry v. Ohio
Provides for a limited, warrantless, pat down search of an individual as long as the following conditions are met: (1) Suspicion: if the observer is a sworn police officer and is observing suspicious behavior, (2) Armed and Dangerous: he/she believes the individual is potentially armed and dangerous, (3) ID as police: must approach the individual(s) and identify him/herself as a police officer, (4) Field interrogation: can conduct a field investigation, ie why they're doing what they are doing. If the officer is still suspicious after these steps, then a limited frisk search is legal.
Miranda v. Arizona
Ruling that held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if it can be proven that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.
Batson v. Kentucky
Stated that excluding members from the venire on the sole basis of race was illegal and a violation of the 14th amendment. p395
Brady v. United States
This case formally recognized the previously unacknowledged custom of plea negotiations in 1970. p342
Duncan v. Louisiana
Supreme Court ruling that the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process requires states to provide trial by jury to persons accused of serious crimes; a right to trial by jury in all criminal cases that are tried in federal court. p393
Escobedo v. Illinois
Decision that requires an accused person be permitted to have an attorney present during interrogation. Court stated that when "the process shifts from investigatory to accusatory," the Court stated, "when its focus is on the accused and its purpose is to elicit a confession, our adversary system begins to operate, and under the circumstances here, the accused must be permitted to consult a lawyer." p252, 253
Gideon v. Wainwright
In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys or lawyers; this extended the right to counsel to all state defendants facing felony trials. (Argersinger v. Hamlin later extended this to ruling from Gideon v. Wainwright to anyone who has committed a misdemeanor that is serious enough to carry a jail sentence) p354
Minnesota v. Dickerson
Established the "plain feel" doctrine that states that when police officers conduct Terry-type searches for weapons, they are free to seize items detected through their sense of touch, as long as the plain feel makes it "immediately apparent" that the item is contraband. If an item seized through a search is not "immediately apparent," then it can be suppressed in court.
Furman v. Georgia
Sought consistency in imposing death penalty sentences. Supreme court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. Invalidated death penalty for rape. p433, 441, 443, 444, 445
Mapp v. Ohio
Generalized exclusionary rule to the states. Supreme Court decided that if police conduct an unlawful search & seizure (violating the 4th amendment), the evidence collected can be suppressed in court.
New York v. Quarles
The Court theorized that there is a "public safety doctrine," which is an exception to the requirement that officers issue Miranda warnings to suspects if the interest in public safety outweighs that of the individual. Since the police officer's request for the location of the gun was prompted by an immediate interest in assuring that it did not injure an innocent bystander or fall into the hands of a potential accomplice of the accused, the officer's failure to read the Miranda warning did not violate the Constitution.
McGautha v. California
Firmly guaranteed jury discretion in imposing the death penalty. Supreme Court upheld that the power of juries to sentence people to death was not unconstitutional. Fatal blow to the abolition movement against the death penalty. p433
Marbury v. Madison
This case formed the basics of judicial review and showed that the Supreme court had some oversight and reinforced our "checks and balances" This claimed, exercised, and justified the Supreme Court
Indianapolis v. Edmond
Justices held that police checkpoints designed to catch drug traffickers or others engaged in general criminal activity infringe on the 4th amendment. The purpose of checkpoints are more aimed at protecting US borders and reducing immediate hazards on the road - of which drug trafficking does not immediately pertain to. p238
Hurtado v. California
Supreme Court ruling that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment does not require states to use grand jury indictments or presentments in capital cases. Supreme Court ruling over a century ago that the grand jury is merely a form of procedure that the states could abolish at will. p381
Delaware v. Prouse
US Supreme Court ruling that random spot checks (without probable cause) are a violation of constitutional rights and a violation of the 4th amendment. p238
Chimel v. California
1969 US Supreme Court ruling that held that upon arrest, the officer may search the person for weapons that would later harm an individual as well as the nearby area within reach of the person being arrested, but may not search other rooms in which the arrest did not take place.
Tennessee v. Garner
Deadly force against a fleeing felon is proper only when it is necessary to prevent the escape & if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Estelle v. Gamble
1976 Supreme Court enunciation on its position towards medical rights of inmates, stating that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the 8th Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed." p546
Holt v. Sarver
1970 federal court ruling that declared the entire Arkansas prison system to be in violation of the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. p549 and 550
New York v. Belton
Court ruling that examined the scope of a vehicle search incident to arrest, developing 2 principles: (1) after making a custodial arrest, police officers may search the entire passenger compartment of the vehicle in conjunction with that arrest, and (2) if any containers are found during the course of the search, they may be opened and searched. p237
Ruiz v. Estelle
1980 federal court decision that declared the Texas prison system to be unconstitutional on the grounds of overcrowding, understaffing, and poor conditions and services (such as medical, educational, occupational, and mental health services). A class action suit brought forth in behalf of all past, present, and future Texas Department of Corrections inmates. This ruling called for a series of reforms to the Texas prison system.
Thornburgh v. Abbott
1989 Supreme Court decision that created a modified hands-off doctrine on incoming mail to prisons. Modified the Procunier v. Martinez ruling that practiced the promotion of "substantial government interests" such as security, order, and rehabilitation for screening mail - both incoming and outgoing. Redefined the restrictions on incoming mail to promote "reasonable government interests" but maintained the Martinez standards for screening outgoing mail. p545
United States v. Booker
2004 Supreme Court decision that held that the use of the federal sentencing guidelines is no longer mandatory. Judges may still consult them, but they are no longer required to use them. p426
United States v. Jackson
Supreme Court decision that invalidated the death penalty provisions of the Federal Kidnapping Act (better known as the Lindbergh Law). p433
Wilson v. Seiter
1991 Supreme Court ruling that declared that prisoners filing lawsuits about inhuman living conditions must show not only that conditions are so deplorable as to violate the Constitution, but also that prison officials have acted with "deliberate indifference" to basic needs, making it considerably more difficult for prisoners to prevail in 8th Amendment lawsuits. p561
3rd Amendment
Protection against involuntary quartering of soldiers
4th Amendment
Protection against illegal searches & seizures
5th Amendment
• Requires indictments for proceedings in serious criminal offenses • Forbids compelling an individual to incriminate him or herself • Forbids trying a person twice for the same offense • Contains the initial constitutional statement on "due process of law"
6th Amendment
• Sets out certain requirements for criminal trials, including the defendant's right to counsel, notification of charges, speedy trial, & the related rights to confront hostile witnesses & to have compulsory processes for obtaining defense witnesses
7th Amendment
Right to a jury trial in cases involving more than $20
8th Amendment
Forbids excessive bail, excessive fines, & cruel & unusual punishment
13th Amendment
Abolition of slavery
14th Amendment
Due process & equal protection
Barron v. Baltimore
The Supreme Court ruling that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect citizens only against the action of the federal, not state or local government
ads

more from user

Heald, Hayward, (Rahimi) OCGT Chapter 1

33 items en en

Heald, Hayward (Rahimi) OCGT Chapter 7

14 items en en

CJ Exam Terms Part 2

36 items en en

CJ Terms part 1

70 items en en

Heald, Hayward, (Rahimi) OCGT Chapter 5

28 items en en

Heald, Substantial Criminal Law Chapter 13

16 items en en

Heald, Substantial Criminal Law Chapter 12

8 items en en

Heald, Substantial Criminal Law Chapter 9

10 items en en

Heald, Substantial Criminal Law Chapter 11

19 items en en

similars

Unit 2, Lesson 3

40 items en en

CRJU450 FINAL EXAM

44 items en en

CJ 471 final

39 items en en

Court Cases

89 items en en

likely

Cases

33 items en en

pol 307 final just the cases

57 items en en

Freedom of Speech/Press

34 items en en

Moot Court Facts and Cases

32 items en en