cases pt 1 Flashcards
Timothy tyrone foster
when: 1986
who: 18 year old black male timothy tyrone foster, elderly white female school teacher
what: he confessed to sexually assaulting and murdering her, in georgia
significance: court argues racial discrimination occurred in jury selection process as four black jurors were denied, clear evidence such as notes identifying jurors as “b 1, b2” and a “no-list.”it is argued that foster deserves new trial. state is not convinced.
duncan v Louisiana
when: 1968
Who: black teen gary duncan, white youth
What: duncan was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. duncan’s request for a jury trial was denied.
Significance: challenged LA supreme court, US Supreme court, US Supreme court concluded that right to a jury trial should be used against states in serious offense. The court held that duncan had the right of trial by jury, as any crime that can be given a 2 year sentence is serious.
Alan gell
when: april 14, 1995.
who: alan gell (suspect), allen ray jenkins (victim), crystal morris and shanna hall. where: bertie, nc.
what: jenkins found shot dead. Morris and hall interviewed, gave inconsistent stories of being accomplices in a robbery, both mention Gell as having devised a plan to rob jenkins. Jenkins allegedly killed april 3rd. Girls given lesser charges for testimony, gell charged with first degree murder, conspiracy, and armed robbery. Gell sentenced to death due to date of jenkin’s death lining up. Prosecution was found withholding evidence favorable to Gell, Gell acquitted of charges and released in 1999.
significance: set the precedent that the prosecution must hand over all evidence, rather than letting prosecution decide what is exculpatory and what is not.
Ferguson
Ferguson, arizona pd forced to undergo reforms of anti-bias training, evaluation of force policy, seos after lawsuit
wardlow v illinois
Respondent, walking in a high-crime area, fled upon seeing a caravan of Chicago police vehicles. Two Chicago police officers caught up with respondent and conducted a Terry stop and frisk. They discovered that Wardlow had a gun. The trial court denied Wardlow’s motion to dismiss the gun prior to his trial. The Illinois appellate court, however, reversed the ruling; and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed that the gun should have been suppressed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Illinois Supreme Court. It held that even though unprovoked flight from police is not always an indication of criminal activity, the police were justified in conducting the stop based on the circumstances in the case.
mapp v Ohio
Mapp’s home was searched absent a warrant. The search yielded the discovery of material classified as “obscene” under Ohio state law. The Supreme Court held that evidence obtained from an unreasonable search and seizurecould not be used against the accused in criminal state court. The court made a point of noting the inconsistency of state courts being permitted to introduce evidence that the federal courts have held to be a violation since both the state and federal government follow the U.S. Constitution.
Freddie Gray
Prosecutors argued that the officers acted unreasonably, willfully disregarding their training and general orders when they didn’t secure Gray in a seat belt in the back of the police transport van and failed to get him medical help, which led to his death. And that Officer Goodson had given Gray a “rough ride.” They also argued that the officers had no probable cause to stop Gray.
miranda v arizona
Miranda was taken into custody by police for purposes of interrogation, where he later confessed. Miranda was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent or right to have counsel present. Evidence of each confession was used at trial. Miranda was convicted and appealed. United States Supreme Court held that a suspect must be informed of their Fifth Amendment rights (right to remain silent and have an attorney present during interrogation) when taken into custody.
weeks v usa
Police officers arrested the defendant, Weeks, at his place of work. Police officers then went to Weeks’ home, gained entry, and took possession of papers and other articles belonging to Weeks. The police did not have a search warrant for Weeks’ home. The evidence taken from Weeks’ home was later used against him at trial to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. Weeks sought return of his property and argued that the search and seizure of his property violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the police did violate Weeks’ Fourth Amendment rights, and reversed and remanded the case.
Dickerson v usa
Petitioner, prior to his criminal trial, moved to suppress a statement he made because he was never given his Miranda warnings. The District Court granted the motion. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Fourth Circuit held that the statement was admissible based on a federal statute that was passed in order to overrule the Miranda decision. Thus, the federal statute superseded the Miranda decision. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit. It held that Miranda is a constitutional decision and cannot be superseded by a federal statute. The Court reasoned that the Miranda decision is constitutional in nature because many subsequent cases have applied it to state court matters. Also, the Court was reluctant to overrule it because the famous Miranda warnings have become so much a part of our national culture.
Holland V. Illinois
A white defendant had standing to raise a Sixth Amendment challenge to exclusion of black venire members from petit jury; however, his Sixth Amendment claim was without merit because a prohibition upon exclusion of cognizable groups through peremptory challenges has no basis in Amendment’s text, is without support in this Court’s decisions, and would undermine, rather than further, Amendment’s guarantee of right to trial by “an impartial jury.”
Marbury V. Madison
Madison failed to finalize the former president’s appointment of William Marbury as Justice of the Peace. Marbury directly petitioned the Supreme Court for an equitable remedy in the form of a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court held that although Marbury was entitled to a remedy, Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 expanding the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction was unconstitutional. Prior to this case, no law had been rendered unconstitutional. The major significance of Marbury v. Madison is that it helped define the original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court.
Caperton V. A.T. Massy Coal Company, Inc
In October 1998, Hugh Caperton filed suit against A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. (Massey) for tortious interference, fraudulent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. A state trial court in West Virginia rendered judgment against Massey and found it liable for $50 million in damages. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia granted review.
However, prior to hearing, Mr. Caperton motioned for Justice Brent Benjamin to recuse himself. He argued that since Massey’s C.E.O. had donated $3 million to Justice Benjamin’s campaign to win a seat on the Supreme Court of Appeals, Justice Benjamin’s participation would present a “constitutionally unacceptable appearance of impropriety.” The motion was denied. In a 3-2 decision with Justice Benjamin voting in the majority, the Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and ordered it to dismiss the case.
After its decision, the court granted Mr. Caperton’s motion for rehearing, but once again denied his motion for Justice Benjamin to recuse himself. On rehearing, the court maintained in a 3-2 decision that the trial court should be reversed and the case dismissed. It reasoned that a forum selection clause in a contract between the parties made the trial court in West Virginia an improper venue. It also concluded that because the parties had previously adjudicated the dispute in a Virginia state trial court, the doctrine of res judicata did not allow this case to be retried.
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Batson, an African American was charged with burglary and receiving stolen property. The state used all their peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off the jury. Batson was convicted and claimed that the use of peremptory challenges based on race were unconstitutional. The Court held that to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must show they are part of a specific racial group, the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to remove possible jury members part of the same racial group and that in light of all surrounding circumstances, the prosecutor used the practice to exclude possible jury members based on race.
