court cases Flashcards
(75 cards)
1
Q
marbury v. madison
A
- established judicial review
- “province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”
2
Q
wren v. united states
A
- supported packer’s crime control model
- police stop in trinidad didn’t violate 4th amendment because police can use intuition, training & training to make stops
3
Q
mapp v. ohio
A
- supported warren’s due process model
- exclusionary rule/fruit of the poisonous tree
- evidence obtained in illegal searches is inadmissable
4
Q
plessy v. ferguson
A
- ‘separate but equal’
- overruling a precedent
- overruled by brown v. board
5
Q
booth v. maryland
A
- distinguising a precedent
- victim impact statements not allowed in DP sentencing
6
Q
dc v. heller
A
- rights of individuals to maintain handguns
- if gun regulation implicates 2nd amendment it’s subject to rational basis standard of review
7
Q
mcdonald v. chicago
A
- incorporated 2nd amendment into states, did not address regulations
8
Q
ny state rifle and piston ass. v. bruen
A
- 2nd amendmnet protects public right to carry firearms
- established new test that includes first of heller test
9
Q
bordenkircher v. hayes
A
- decision to prosecute, what charges to file, and whether to convene grand jury lies with the prosecutor
- decision is not reviewable by courts
10
Q
powell v. alabama
A
- free counsel when indigent defendent is charged with a capital offense
11
Q
johnson v. zerbst
A
- federal government must provide free counsel for all indigent defendants
12
Q
gideon v. wainwright
A
- right to counsel incorporated into states
- counsel must be afforded to indigent at no personal cost
13
Q
arsinger v. hamlin
A
- clarified Gideon
- right to counsel only applies when there is threat of imprisonment
- counsel applies to all states of CJS process
14
Q
strickland v. washington
A
- assistance of counsel must be effective
- counsel must apply to appellate attorneys
- established conflict checks
- petitioner must prove counsel was ineffective & denied 6th amendment right, deficiency must be unreasonable
- reasonable probability that if not for mistakes, outcome would be different
15
Q
mcmann v. richardson
A
- effective assistance means any legal advice ‘in the range of competence’ demanded by attorneys in criminal cases
16
Q
williams v. taylor
A
- to prove ineffective assistance at sentencing you need to show reasonable probability that sentencing outcome would be different
- hard since judges work within guidelines
17
Q
lee v. united states
A
- lee argued ineffective becuase lawyer did the one thing he didn’t want (he pled guilty & was deported)
- attorney admitted error and court decided outcome would have been different
18
Q
tumey v. ohio
A
- right to due process violated if judge has direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest in a case
19
Q
dugan v. ohio
A
- challenged judge who was a memeber of city comissions, decides city finances, pretty big financial issue
- judge was not disqualified
20
Q
strauder v. west virginia
A
- SC ruled 14th amendment gives everyone right to citizenship including jury duty right
- prohibited states from enacting legislating banning black people from juries
21
Q
avery v. georgia
A
- clerk had jurors on notecards based on race, decided juries wtih notecards
- SC said it was unconstitutional
22
Q
swainn v. alabama
A
- you have to prove that there is a systematic exclusion of black jurors through preemptory challenges (very hard) (Marian Berry)
- first case to address black jurors & preemptory challenges
23
Q
amadeo v. zant
A
- clerks didn’t put black individuals in jury pools
- SC struck down process of eliminating/tokenizing balck people in pools
24
Q
batson v. kentucky
A
- batson challenges
- defendant has a prima facie case for discrimination
- excluder has to provide court with race neutral explanation for why each juror is excluded
25
maryland v. craig
- 6th amendment does not provide face to face confrontation
- confrontation of accuser can be modified due to public policy need and where testimony reliabiltiy is ensured by ability to cross-examine witness
26
carter v. kentucky
- defendant can tell judge to tell jury not to infer anthing based on defendant's failure to testify
27
wolfe v. united states
- marital privilege upheld by SC, it should withstand challenge to the administration of justice
28
daubert v. merrel dow
- judges are responsible for assessing validity of expert witness competency
29
arizona v. fulminate
- false confessions may be considered harmelss error and is not immediate grounds for an appeal
- admission of a coerced confession can be considered erroneous admission of other types of evidence
30
crawford v. washington
- statement made out of court may not be used unless it meets hearsay exception or defendant has ability to cross-examine witness
31
commonwealth v. battis
- black man facing DP pled guilty, court examined his mental state
- he was allowed to plead guilty, but courts didn't like it
32
edwards v. michigan
- Michigan statute regarding guilty pleas
- outlawed sentencing promises or concessions of defense by proseuctor
33
santobello v. new york
- if you're promised anything that induces you to cooperate, that promise must be fulfilled
34
united states v. ammidown
- supreme court said judge cannot reject plea agreements unless it's determined prosecutor abused discretion
35
mcculloch v. maryland
- established doctrine of unenumerated powers, counterbalancing originalism
- congress & executve branch have powers not explicitly stated in constitution and those powers allow them to run the country
36
in re kemmler
- death is only cruel or unusual when it involves torture or lingering death
37
trop v. dulles
- death penalty has been used through history and cannot be said to violate consittuion
- to some degree, whether or not we accept it, evolving standards of decency will affect whether or not we view it as cruel
38
furman v. georgia
- said the way the death penalty was being applied was arbitrary & discriminatory against non-white
- everybody on death row under those procedures has sentences commuted
39
gregg v. georgia
- death penalty cases need to have bifurcataed trials
- in secondary hearing, jury must hear aggravting & mitigating factors
40
coker v. georgia
- applying DP to rape cases of adult women without murder is disproportionate to crime
41
eberheart v. georgia
- imposition of DP on kidnapping without murder cases is disproportionate
42
ring v. arizona
- jury must be the one to deterime agravating circumstances necessary for imposition of DP
43
kennedy v. louisiana
- applying DP in child rape cases without murder is disproportionate to crime
44
atkins v. virginia
- unconstitutional to execute defendants with cognitive/developmental limitations at the time of the crime
45
roper v. simmons
- can't execute someone who was under 18 atht the time of the crime
46
mcclesky v. kemp
- black man used Baldus study to prove DP was unconstitutional under 14th amendment
- court found study valid, but sayd mcclesky had to prove discrimination in his particular case
47
united states v. nixon
- prosecutor subpoenaed nixon, but he used executive order to say no
- 8-0 decision said defendents had a right to exculpatory evidence unless it compromises national security directly
48
apprendi v. new jersey
- if you want to enhance a sentence because of a hate crime you must find that and prove it prior to conviction
- any factor used to determine seriousness of a case has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt
49
cuningham v. california
- if judges want to enhance senteces due to aggravating factors the factors must be proven beyond all reasoable doubt (not preponderance of evidence)
50
united states v. booker
- united states v. fanfan
- court ruled in booker-fanfan decision that sentencing gulideines are advisory, not mandatory
51
alleyne v. united states
- any fact used to support guideline departure has to be sumbitted to the jury & decided beyond all reasonable doubt or admitted to by the defendent
52
ashe v. swenson
- when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final judgement, the issue cannot be litigated again
53
griffin v. illinois
- indigent defendent filing appeal on his own, could not afford trial transcripts
- trial transcripts have to be given to the defendant and be provided free of charge
54
douglas v. california
- right to counsel extended to appeal under 5th and 14th amendment
55
nc v. pierce
blackledge v. perry
- the state cannot retaliate against a defendant after a successfula peal with harsher sentences, etc.
56
boykin v. alabama
- a plea cannot be appealed if it was made voluntaryily, knowlingly, ad intelligently
- also cannot be appealed if there was effective counsel during the process
57
talit v. henderson
- a plea made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently cannot be appealed based on actions of prosecutor before the plea was taken (brady violations, illegal searches)
58
cohen v. beneficial industrial loan corporation
- interlocutory appeals are reserved for rights that are asserted in the action that are too important to be denied
59
chauvin case
- charged with multiple crimes including 3rd degree
- court found he could not be tried on 3rd
- appealed trial judges and won, was tried with 3rd
60
stack v. boyle
- SC found a defendant's appeal of bail could be interlocutory
- only bail that is necesasry to ensure the presence of the defenant at trial
61
abney v. united states
- dismissal of the indictment or a denial of a dismissal could be ground for interlocutory appeal
62
rita v. united states
- sentences within the range of sentencing guidelines have a presumption of reasonableness
- to prove it was unreasonable defendants have to overcome presumption
63
kimbrough v. united states
- departing from the guidelines is permissable if the judge states on the record that they have a policy disagreement with the guidelines
64
bozza v. united states
- sustaining an appeal of the sentence does not mean the defendant escapes all punishment, only the sentence is modified
65
gitlow v. new york
- speech is not protected if it is not an essential element of the exposition of ideas & are of such slight value as a step to tuth that any benefit derviced is outweighted by the social interest in order & morality
66
california v. hurtado
- right to a grand jury has never been incorporated into states
- denial of a grand jury is not a violation of due process
67
barker v. wingow
- decision outlined unnecessary delay
- congress went further with speedy trial act of 1974 - 100 days from arrest to trial
68
north carolina v. alford
- established alford plea
- pleading guilt while maintaining innocence
- plea due to avoid worse punishment
- undermines CJS
69
united states v. rahimi
- originalism, is banning DV/protective order individuals from owning guns unconstitutional
- 5th circuit supported rahimi's argument, case went to SC
70
clinton v. jones
- 9-0 said that presidential immunity does not extend to civil litigation except for highly unusual cases
71
brandon byrd case
- cannot limit speech based on mere advocacy of force/violence, and govt. employees have limited freedoms in this matter
72
brady v. maryland
- prosecutor's offuce must turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense (including things that undermine witness credibility)
- some states require reciprocal discovery
73
abney v. united states
- dismissal of indictment or denial of dismissal could be grounds for interlocutory appeal
74
faye v. noia
- detainment/incarceration has to conform with fundamental requirements of law, and if it does not you're entitled to immediate release
- reestablishes correctional system's duty to respond to the judiciary
75
mckane v. durston
- the appellate process is not included in the constitutional requirement of due process
