This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to interrogation, searches, and the right to a jury trial. It notes that police are not required to inform suspects of a lawyer's availability per Moran v. Burbine. It also discusses cases like Chavez v. Martinez regarding interrogation in hospitals, and cases involving juveniles like In re Gault. The document also summarizes Supreme Court cases on searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, such as Mapp v. Ohio which established the exclusionary rule. Finally, it discusses the origins and importance of the right to a jury trial under both English common law and the U.S. Constitution.
This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to interrogation, searches, and the right to a jury trial. It notes that police are not required to inform suspects of a lawyer's availability per Moran v. Burbine. It also discusses cases like Chavez v. Martinez regarding interrogation in hospitals, and cases involving juveniles like In re Gault. The document also summarizes Supreme Court cases on searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, such as Mapp v. Ohio which established the exclusionary rule. Finally, it discusses the origins and importance of the right to a jury trial under both English common law and the U.S. Constitution.
This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to interrogation, searches, and the right to a jury trial. It notes that police are not required to inform suspects of a lawyer's availability per Moran v. Burbine. It also discusses cases like Chavez v. Martinez regarding interrogation in hospitals, and cases involving juveniles like In re Gault. The document also summarizes Supreme Court cases on searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, such as Mapp v. Ohio which established the exclusionary rule. Finally, it discusses the origins and importance of the right to a jury trial under both English common law and the U.S. Constitution.
Police do not inform suspect of lawyers availability.
What is the significance of this omission? Moran V. Burbine (1986)- Interrelationship of 5 th and 6 th Amendments. -Due process rights -When a suspect doesnt have an attorney at their side it is more likely they will say something incriminating. Interrogation in hospital Chavez V. Martinez (2003) No 5 th Amendment violation Juveniles In re Gault (1967)-Made obscene phone calls and was convicted, they failed on the due process rights and it was revoked. Fare V. Michael C. (1979)- no 5 th amendment violation Yarborough v. Alvarado (2004)-A 17 year old is taken to the police station by his parents and while he is there he admits to being involved in a crime. Based on that he is suspected of second degree murder and more. Q: Whether juvenile was in custody at police station. What sort of contextual evidence should be used to decide if a person is in custody? No special treatment because of age J.D.P. v. North Carolina (2011) - Students must receive Miranda warnings if questioned. Overturning Miranda? Dickerson v. U.S. (2000)- The supreme court said that Miranda was a constitutional rule and that congress could not change a constitutional rule by legislation. Miranda was upheld. Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010) - Suspect must invoke right to remain silent. Silence during interrogation- did not invoke his right to remain silent. Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy? Thompkin replied yes after 3 hours of silence. Searches and bodily Integrity Rochin V. California (1952) Famous stomach pump case Conduct that shocked the conscience Based on due process clause, not 5 th Amendment Searches What constitutes and unreasonable search? Mapp v. Ohio (1961) The Exclusionary rule (Evidence that is illegally obtained) 6-3 Decision for Mapp. - Does the exclusionary rule prevent police misconduct? What are the arguments for and against it? U.S. v. Leon (1984) The good faith exception- The police rely on good faith on a warrant that they believe is valid. The evidence can be used, which normally would be excluded because the warrant was invalid. Winston v. Lee (1985)- surgical search. Does that go against the 4 th amendment? Castle Rock V. Gonzales Juries 1. Function: finding the facts versus applying the law. They are ways for the people to fight the activities of the government. Independence of the Jury Directed verdict- Before the jury makes the verdict Judgment notwithstanding the verdict- the party wants the verdict aside. This is after the verdict has been given. Trial of William Penn (1670) Compare to Throckmorten case (1554) John Peter Zenger case (1735)- Leading case for freedom of the press. Seditious libel charge against Zenger. Right to a trial by Jury Early textual bias: magna Carta (1215), Clause 39 U.S. Constitution Article III 5 th Amendment- Requires an indictment by a grand jury 6 th Amendment- Requires a speedy, public trial 7 th Amendment- Allows trial by jury in civil matters. U.S. Supreme Court view of the right to a trial by Jury Duncan V. Louisiana (1968) No Jury trial because Louisiana only provided one if the penalty could be hard labor of capital punishment. The 6 th Amendment right is proratedated and binding on the states. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the jurys function Jury Selection Pool- DMV, voter rolls, local census lists, taxpayers Voir dire Bases for removal: cause and peremptory challenges Potential misuse of peremptory challenged
United States Ex Rel. Stephen J. B. v. Joseph A. Shelly, Chief Probation Officer, Probation Department, Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department, Kings County, New York, 430 F.2d 215, 2d Cir. (1970)
United States of America Ex Rel. William Hayward v. Robert L. Johnson, Superintendent State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania, 508 F.2d 322, 3rd Cir. (1975)