4,5,8 amendment SC cases

Question 1

What was the Carpenter v US (2018) case about?

Answer 1

Between 2010-1, several people in Detroit carried out armed robberies at RadioShack and T-Mobile stores. In April 2011, 4 robbers were arrested. One of them confessed and turned their phone over to the FBI. A judge then granted the FBI’s request to acquire cell phone location data from the phone. Using this information, they determined that Timothy Carpernter was in a two mile radius of all 4 robberies, so arrested and charged him

Question 2

What was the outcome of the case?

Answer 2

Carpenter appealed to the 6th circuit court of appeals, which supported the original ruling. Carpenter’s concerns about his 4th amendment right to privacy were considered, and they ruled that the 4th amendment only protected the content of his communications, not cell phone location data. As this data came from the service provider’s records, it did not constitute a 4th amendment search and so did not require a warrant. The SC reviewed. The court ruled 5-4 (Roberts and the liberal justices) in favour of Carpenter, noting that US v Jones (2012) had ruled that GPS data had constituted a 4th amendment search, and that cell phone location data could pose even greater risks to privacy. Carpenter’s case was reheard by the Court of Appeals, which still sentenced him on the basis that the FBI collected the data when this was permitted by law at the time

Question 3

Why was the case significant?

Answer 3

The government now has to obtain a warrant to acquire cell phone location data, other than in cases of emergency or national security. The SC effectively created a new law on the use and acquisition of cell phone location data. The SC can be seen as updating the constitution to answer modern questions that the FF could not have covered

Question 4

What type of case was this?

Answer 4

The court created new policy on cell phone location data usage. The court also overturned the decision of the 6th circuit Court of Appeals

Question 5

What amendment was the case related to?

Answer 5

4th

Question 6

What amendment was the 1966 Miranda v Arizona case related to?

Answer 6

5th

Question 7

What was the case about?

Answer 7

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested based on circumstantial evidence linking him to kidnap and rape. After 2 hours of interrogation, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge. However, Miranda was not told about his right to legal representation or his right to remain silent and he was not told that anything during interrogation would be used against him. His lawyer said that because of this, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be voided

Question 8

What was the outcome of the case?

Answer 8

Despite this Miranda was convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison. He appealed to the Arizona SC, which sided with the trial court. An appeal then went to the SC. Miranda’s conviction was then overturned in a 5-4 decision and his case went back to Arizona for retrial. He was retried without the confession as evidence and was still sentenced to 20-30 years in prisom

Question 9

Why was the case significant?

Answer 9

Established the right that a person in custody must be informed that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can be used against them in court and that they must be clearly informed that they have the right to consult a lawyer and have a lawyer with them during interrogations. As a result of the Miranda decision, police in the US are required to inform arrested people of their rights prior to question them. If they do not, the person’s answers will not be admissable in court

Question 10

What kind of case was this?

Answer 10

The court effectively created new policy here

Question 11

What amendment does the 2000 Dickerson v US case relate to?

Answer 11

5th

Question 12

What was the case about?

Answer 12

In 1968, two years after the Miranda decision, congress passed a law that attempted to overrule it. This law told federal trial judges to allow as evidence any statements made voluntarily, regardless of whether they heard the Miranda warning. Charles Dickerson had been arrested for bank robbery and violently using a firearm. The District Court did not admit as evidence the statements Dickerson had made to the FBI because he did not receive the Miranda warning. The government appealed, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district by saying that the 1968 law passed by congress overruled the Miranda decision. The debate here was whether the Miranda decision was a constitutional one, or whether it was a rile created only due to the absence of a specific and relevant law passed by congress concerning this matter

Question 13

What was the ruling

Answer 13

The SC ruled that the Miranda ruling was constitutional, so overturned the decision of the appeals court rather than overruling the SC judgement made 34 years prior

Question 14

Significance

Answer 14

Established the Miranda rights as a 5th amendment right

Question 15

What type of case was this?

Answer 15

The court overturned a previous court decision and upheld the decision of the SC itself decades before. The court also found a new right, as it declared the Miranda warning to be a 5th amendment right

Question 16

What was the 2010 Berghuis v Thompson case about?

Answer 16

Concerning the position of a suspect who is aware that they have the right to remain silent as per the Miranda warning, but does not explicitly claim or waive the right. Van Chester Thompkins was a suspect in a fatal shooting in 2000 in Michigan. Police officers advised him of his Miranda rights, then interrogated him. At no point did Thompkins state that he wanted to use this right or that he wanted legal representation, and he remained completely silent for almost three hours. Near the end of this time, the detectives changed tactics. They asked Thompkins if he believed in God (yes), if he prayed to God (yes) and if he prayed to God for forgiveness for shooting the victim (yes). Thompkins tried to suppress his statements under the 5th amendment, but the trial courts denied this on the grounds that he had not explicity invoked the 5th He was found guilty and sentenced to life (there was lots of other evidence of his guilt aside from the statements). Thompkins appealed his conviction, Berghuis was the prison warden. The Distirct Court denied his requests, but the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his decision and did not believe that there was an implied waver of the right to remain silent. This then went to the SC

Question 17

Outcome

Answer 17

Kennedy and the conservative justices ruled 5-4 that his silence during interrogation did not invoke his right to silence, and that he did waive this right when he voluntarily and knowingly made a statement to police

Question 18

Significance

Answer 18

Suspects now have to explicitly invoke the 5th as a result of this ruling. The legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote that this ruling seriously undermines Miranda

Question 19

Type of case

Answer 19

Overturning a previous court decision and creating a new policy

Question 20

What amendment does the 2013 Salinas v Texas case relate to?

Answer 20

5th

Question 21

What was it about?

Answer 21

Genevevo Salinas had voluntarily gone to a police station when officers asked him to accompany them to talk about the murder of two men. He was not in custody when questioned. As he was not under arrest, he was not required to be explicitly told about his right to remain silent. Salinas answered most of the questions, but when they found him whether shotgun casings found at the scene of the crime matched his gun he remained silent and acted nervously. Prosecutors at the trial told the jury that this was evidence of guilt. Salinas’ lawyer wanted the SC to rule that his silence during police questioning, when not under arrest, should not be used against him in a criminal trial

Question 22

Outcome

Answer 22

Kennedy and the conservatives voted 5-4 that he did not explicitly invoke the 5th, so his silence after voluntarily answering other questions could be used against him

Question 23

Significance

Answer 23

Extended the Breghuis ruling and further eroded Miranda as it also meant that the 5th amendment does not protect a defendant before they have been arrested or read their Miranda rights

Question 24

Type of case

Answer 24

Eroded a previous court decision (Miranda)

Question 25

What amendment does the 2002 Atkins v Virginia case relate to?

Answer 25

8th

Question 26

What was it about?

Answer 26

On night in 1996, Atkins and his accomplice abducted a man robbed him, then drove him to a remote location and shot him to death. They were quickly tracked down and arrested, with each man claiming that the other had pulled the trigger. A number of inconsistencies were found in Atkins’s version of events, and a deal was reached with the accomplice for testimony against Atkins. The jury decided that Jones’ version of events was more coherent and credible, convicting Atkins of murder. At the trial, the defence presented evidence that Atkins had an IQ of 59, suggesting that he was ‘mildly mentally retarded’. Atkins was nevertheless sentenced to death. The Virginia SC confirmed this in an appeal. The US SC agreed to review the death sentence. The 8th amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Unlike other amendments, it has been interpreted by the courts in the light of modern standards and evolving standards of decency. As a result, in Coker v Georgia (1977), the SC found that the death penalty was inappropriate as a punishment for rape, and in Enmund v Florida (1982), that it was an inappropriate for the driver of a getaway car in a robbery-murder

Question 27

Outcome?

Answer 27

The SC decided that a national consensus had emerged that the intellectually disabled should not be executed, as 21 of the 31 death penalty states had passed laws against the execution of the intellectually disabled. The court ruled 6-3 that the execution of the mentally disabled does not provide retribution or deterrance. Atkins sentence was changed to life imprisonment

Question 28

Significance

Answer 28

The court set the precendent that the execution of the mentally disabled would amount to the ‘purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering’, as the mentally disabled are less likely to be able to communicate with the same level of sophistication as the average offender, making it more likely that juries will interpret their testimony as a lack of remorse and impose the death penalty, making it ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in these cases. Following the ruling, states passed laws to fix IQ scores below which a criminal would be considered mentally disabled

Question 29

Type of case

Answer 29

The court overturned a previous court ruling and in doing so it effectively created new policy

Question 30

What was the 2005 Roper v Simmons case about?

Answer 30

In 1993, 17-year-old Simmons and an accomplice planned to commit burglary and murder. They broke into Shirley Nite Crook’s home, tied her up and threw her off a bridge. She drowned. Simmons confessed to the murder, performed a video-taped re-enactment at the crime scene, and his accomplice testified against him. The jury found him guilty and recommended a death sentence. Simmons appealed against this, citing his age and troubled background. All of his appeals failed, but in light of Atkins v Virginia the Missouri SC concluded that a national consensus had developed against the execution of juvenile offenders, and therefore the punishment violated the 8th amendment . They therefore sentenced Simmons to life inprisonment without parole. The state of Missouri then appealed to the US SC, who considered the constitutionality of capital punishment for people who were juveniles at the time they committed their crimes. Thompson v Oklahoma (1988) had barred the possibility for executing offenders under the age of 16, but Stanford v Kentucky (1989) upheld this possibility for those aged 16 and 17

Question 31

Outcome

Answer 31

Based on the previous rulings, the court ruled 5-4 that it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute someone who was under 18 at the time the offence was committed, citing research that suggests juveniles lack maturity and a sense of responsibility compared to adults. The court also cited that while at the time of the decision 20 states still allowed for the juvenile death penalty, only 6 had carried this out since 1989 and 3 since 1994. The Court also noted that it the world only Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Yemen continued to execute juvenile offenders

Question 32

Significance

Answer 32

Outlawed the execution of juvenile offenders on the ground that this was cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violated the 8th amendment. The decision cancelled the death sentence of not only Simmons, but 72 other prisoners on death row

Question 33

Type of case?

Answer 33

The court was effectively creating a new policy, by overturning existing state policy and a previous court decision

Question 34

What was the 2008 Baze v Rees case about?

Answer 34

Ralph Baze and Thomas Bowling were sentenced to death in Kentucky, each for a double murder. They argued that executing them by lethal injection would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violate the 8th amendment, as they said that the lethal chemicals would carry the unnecessary risk of inflicting pain during the execution. The Kentucky SC rejected their claim, but the US SC agreed to hear their case

Question 35

Outcome

Answer 35

The SC ruled 7-2 that Kentucky’s drug cocktail was constitutional

Question 36

Significance

Answer 36

At the time, Kentucky used a cocktail of three drugs that was common in all states that used the death penalty, so rejecting that drug cocktail would have had nationwide ramifications and would have essentially ended the death penalty. Whilst the case was being heard, the SC paused all executions across the US between Sep 2007- Apr 2008, the longest period of zero executions since 1982

Question 37

Type of case

Answer 37

The court upheld existing state policy

Question 38

What was the 2008 Kennedy v Louisiana case about?

Answer 38

Patrick Kennedy was sentenced to death after being convicted of raping and sodomising his 8 year old daughter in 1998, an uncommonly brutal assualt that required invasive surgery on the victim. Kennedy refused to plead guilty when a deal was offered that would have allowed him to avoid the death sentence. He was convicted in 2003 and sentenced to death under a Louisiana law that allowed the death penalty for the rape of a child under 12. Kennedy challenged the constitutionality of this in the SC. The Louisiana SC considered the US SC’s ruling in Georgia v Coker (1977), which determined that the death penalty was too harsh a sentence for the rape of an adult, but rejected the challenge, ruling that it was not too harsh a punishment for the rape of a child. They conclude that the unique vulnerability of children, combined with the fact that 5 other states had a law permitting the execution of child rapists, meant that the law was constitutional. The US SC then agreed to hear the case. Kennedy’s defence argued that six states also following the same law did not constitute a national consensus, and that the Coker ruler should apply to rape cases where the victim is of any age, rather than just adults

Question 39

Outcome

Answer 39

Kennedy and the 4 liberal justices ruled 5-4 that the 8th amendment bars Louisiana for imposing the death penalty as a punishment for rape where the death of the victim was not the intended outcome. The majority opinion stated that the provision of the death penalty had to rest upon national consensus, and that six states did not constitute such a consensus. Ultimately, the caught decided that the death penalty should not be extended to instances where the individual’s life was not taken. The decision came shortly before the 2008 presidential election, with both candidates, Obama and McCain, criticising the ruling. Kennedy was sentenced to life without parole

Question 40

Significance

Answer 40

The case pitted the 8th amendment against the 10th amendment, as well as determining whether the death sentence was a proportionate punishment for the execution of a child. The case effectively meant that the death penalty could only be used as punishment for a crime where the victims life was taken intentionally, and therefore not even for things such as the rape of a child

Question 41

Type of case

Answer 41

The court overturned both a previous state court decision and existing state policy, and, in doing so, effectively created new legislation

Question 42

What was the 2010 Graham v Florida case about?

Answer 42

16-year-old Terrence Graham and two accomplices attempted to rob a Florida BBQ restaurant in 2003. Graham was arrested and the prosecutor chose to charge him as an adult. Armed burglary with assault and battery is punishable by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Graham pleaded guilty, writing a letter to the court saying, ‘this is my first and last time getting in trouble, I’ve decided to turn my life around’. The trial court accepted a plea agreement, and he was released in June 2004. Less than 6 months later Graham was arrested again, for invasion robbery. In 2006, a judge sentenced him to life in prison. As Florida had abolished parole, this effectively amounted to life in prison without parole

Question 43

Outcome

Answer 43

The SC ruled 6-3 that ‘the constitution prohibits the imposition of a life sentence without parole on a juvenile offender who did not commit a homicide. A state doesn’t need to guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a life sentence it must provide him or her with a realistic opportunity to obtain relaease before the end of that term

Question 44

Significance

Answer 44

The ruling meant that juvenile offenders could not be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole if the offence was not murder

Question 45

Type of case

Answer 45

The court overturned existing state policy and a previous court decision and in doing so effectively created new policy

Question 46

What was the 2012 Miller v Alabama case about?

Answer 46

In 2003, 14 year old Evan Miller was convicted for murder after robbing and severely beating a neighbour he had bought drugs from, then setting fire to the trailer that he lived in. The victim died of severe injuries and smoke inhalation. In 2006, Miller was given a life term with no possibility of parole

Question 47

Outcome

Answer 47

Kennedy and the liberal justices ruled 5-4 that mandatory life without parole when the offender was under 18 at the time of the crime violates the 8th amendment by constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Miller was then resentenced to life with parole

Question 48

Significance

Answer 48

Extended the Graham v Florida ruling, which had ruled that life without parole sentences for offences committed by juveniles other than murder were unconstitutional, as this ruling now included murder cases too

Question 49

Type of case

Answer 49

The court overturned a previous court decision and in doing so effectively created new policy

Question 50

What was the 2015 Hall v Florida case about?

Answer 50

In 1978, Freddie Hall and an accomplice committed the rape and murder of Karol Hurst, a 21 year old woman who was 7 months pregnant at the time. After, they murdered a deputy sheriff who tried to apprehend them. Hall was sentenced to death. In Atkins v Virginia (2002), the SC had outlawed the execution of the mentally disabled. Hall challenged his death sentence on the grounds that he had an intellectual disability. A trial judge noted that Hall had been ‘mentally retarded his entire life’, and Hall presented an IQ score of 71. Flordia law considered that anyone with an IQ above 70 was not considered mentally retarded

Question 51

Outcome

Answer 51

Kennedy and the liberal justices ruled 5-4 that the Florida law was unconstitutional as it relied on a rigid threshold for borderline cases and therefore creates an unacceptable risk the the intellectually disabled will be executed, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Question 52

Significance

Answer 52

Kennedy and the liberal justices ruled 5-4 that the Florida law was unconstitutional as it relied on a rigid threshold for borderline cases and therefore creates an unacceptable risk the the intellectually disabled will be executed, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Question 53

Significance

Answer 53

The decision set the precedent that in such borderline cases, where the convicted falls in the range of 70-75, the convicted must be allowed to present other evidence of their intellectual disability, particularly as IQ tests have a margin of error. The court also adopted the term intellectually disabled instead of mentally retarded, which had been used in previous cases. The ruling clarified the Atkins decision by outlining the conditions for deciding what constitutes an intellectual disability

Question 54

Type of case

Answer 54

The court overturned existing state policy and a previous court ruling, and, in doing so, effectively created a new policy

Question 55

What was the 2000 Moore v Texas case about?

Answer 55

In 1980, Bobby Moore and two others committed armed robbery of a supermarket. During this, Moore shot a 70 year old employee in the head, killing him. A jury sentenced him to death, and Moore appealed the decision for the following decades. A state court held a two day hearing in 2014 and concluded, after hearing from mental health professionals, that Moore had shown an intellectual disability. The court suggested to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that he not be executed, but they CCA rejected this. They said that they had given Moore an IQ test in 1989, and he had scored 74. In Atkins v Virginia (2002), the SC had indicated that it was a score of 70 or below that constituted an intellectual disability, and the executing the mentally disabled constituted cruel and unusual punishment and therefore violated the 8th amendment. In Hall v Florida 2014, the court concluded that in marginal cases, a margin of error within the tests must be accounted for. As the margin of error is 5 points either way, this gave Moore a score of 69-70, constituting a mild mental disability

Question 56

Outcome

Answer 56

The SC ruled 5-3 that following these cases as precedents, executing Moore would violate the 8th amendment and therefore be unconstitutional

Question 57

Significance

Answer 57

Reinforced the idea that borderline cases of mental disability cannot be executed

Question 58

Type of case

Answer 58

The court overturned a previous court decision and reinforced one of its own previous rulings

Question 59

What was the 2019 Bucklew v Precythe case about?

Answer 59

In 1996, Russel Bucklew murdered a man who was sheltering Bucklew’s ex-girlfriend after their breakup. He then kidnapped and raped his ex-girlfriend. The state of Missouri sentenced him to death. By 2006, Bucklew had unsuccessfully exhausted all appeals, but he then attempted to legally challenge Missouri’s use of lethal injection. Baze v Rees (2008) had already determined that the lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment and was therefore constitutional. This ruling therefore invalidated Bucklew’s legal challenge. However, during this period, Missouri changed the drugs it used for its lethal injections. Bucklew challenged the use of this new drug cocktail under the grounds that, due to an existing health condition, the injection would cause him and unusually painful and torturous death that would qualify as cruel and unusual. The SC agreed to put his execution on hold while the case was decided. The Baze decision stated that a challenge to the method of capital punishment requires the convicted to show that there is an alternative that is ‘feasible, readily implemented, and substantially reduces the risk of intense pain. Bucklew requested the use of nitrogen as a lethal gas. Both the federal district court and the 8th circuit court of appeals rejected this request, and it went to the SC

Question 60

Outcome

Answer 60

The court ruled 5-4 (all conservatives) to uphold the decision of the lower courts, deciding that the evidence Bucklew had provided was not sufficient for an 8th amendment challenge. The majority opinion stated that the 8th amendment protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment but does not guarantee a painless death, and that Bucklew’s continuous legal challenges were just stalling tactics. The minority opinion disagreed, arguing that Bucklew had demonstrated that death by lethal injection could cause him an excruciating execution due to his conditions. Bucklew was executed in 2019 with no complications

Question 61

Significance

Answer 61

Created a precedent that the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment does not guarantee against a completely painless death

Question 62

Type of case

Answer 62

The court effectively created a new policy that the 8th amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment does not mean that those who are being executed must have a completely painless death