Name: ___________________________________________ Mod: ________

Date: _______ / ________ / 2011 U5.LP4: Due Process and Rights of the Accused

Objective: Students will analyze landmark Supreme Court Cases in order to apply procedural and
substantive due process.
Warm-Up
How would both
entities respond to
Federal Reserve Congress
the economic issues
below?
Possible answers to be written into either monetary or fiscal policy columns.
1. decrease taxing and increase spending
2. increase taxing and decrease spending
3. increase the money supply
4. decrease the money supply
Examples Monetary Policy Fiscal Policy
The CPI has been
steadily falling.
The unemployment
rate is at an all time
low: 1%
GDP is increasing
and the
unemployment rate
is decreasing
The GDP is
decreasing and the
unemployment rate
is increasing

Introduction to New Material

Main Points Supporting Details
What is Process?  A series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular _________.

What is Due  _____________ treatment through the judicial system, especially a citizen’s
Process? ___________.

Where do we get  We get due ________________ rights from the Constitution.

Due Process?  The _______ Amendment provides Due Process rights and protections from the
Federal Government.
 The 14th Amendment provides Due Process rights and protections from the
_________________ Governments.

Types of Due  __________________ Due Process: The notion that the law is applied fairly in all
Process Rights instances.
 Substantive Due Process: The basic idea that the law is ____________________.

Procedural Due
Process  Procedural Due Process include many rights to __________________ person
(charged with a crime):
 The right against search/___________ unless a legal search warrant is
presented.
 The right against arrest unless a legal arrest warrant is presented.
 The right to be read your _______________ rights.
 The right to counsel / lawyer / attorney.
 The right to know the ______________________ against you.
 The right against self _________________________ / remain silent.
 The right to a ________________ jury where it is decided if some one is given an
indictment, or formally charged with a crime.
 The right to a ___________________ trial.
 The right to be presumed ___________________ until proven guilty.
 The right to have witnesses testify on one’s behalf and have admit legal
evidence.
 The right to be judged by an impartial jury / jury of peers.
 The right against ___________________ jeopardy (tried for the same crime twice).
Substantive Due
Process
 Substantive Due Process is the idea that national (5th) and state (14th)
government cannot revoke life, __________________ or right to property. It includes:
 Freedom of speech
 Right to ___________
 Right to choice in schools
 Right to petition the government
 Right to ownership of property
 Right be treated _________________ in a workplace
 A hearing if suspended from school
Miranda v.
Arizona  The Supreme Court ruled in Miranda v. Arizona that the suspect be
_____________________ of their ___________________.
 If not informed police interrogation statements cannot be used in courts.
 Based on the protection in 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause against self
incrimination.
Gideon v.
Wainwright  The Supreme Court ruled in ____________________ v. Wainwright that the accused
must be provided a ____________________ in a criminal trial.
 The case was based on the 5th and 14th Amendments’ ___________ Process Clause.
 Also, the Gideon decision overturned early court decisions that said State’s did
not have to provide a lawyer because the _____________ amendment only applies
to the national government.
 HOMEWORK
The LSN FAST III is Monday March 28th. Study.

Case name: Gideon v. Wainright

On June 3, 1961, someone broke into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Some beer
and wine were stolen. The cigarette machine and jukebox were smashed and money was missing. A
witness said he saw Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom early that morning. The police found
Gideon and arrested him. He had a lot of change in his pockets and was carrying a bottle of wine.
1 They charged him with breaking and entering.
Gideon was poor. He could not afford a lawyer. At the trial, he asked the judge to appoint a lawyer
for him. The judge said no. Gideon argued that the Sixth Amendment says he is entitled to a lawyer.
The judge told Gideon that the state doesn't have to pay for a poor person's legal defense. This meant
that Gideon had to defend himself. He tried hard but didn't do a very good job. For example, he called
some witnesses who helped the other side more than they helped him.
Write a MEAL paragraph responding to the following prompt:
2 Were the plaintiff’s due process rights violated? What evidence do you have that demonstrates a
violation of due process rights?
M Do you think the due process rights were violated and why?
The plaintiff’s due process rights were violated, because he was not appointed a lawyer.

E What proof did you identify in your paragraph that supports your Main Idea?
The judge denied Gideon a lawyer, because he said, “the state doesn’t have to pay for a poor
person’s legal defense.”

A Explain what the evidence means and why it is important in your own words…
This evidence demonstrates that the judge didn’t know how to read the Constitution correctly.
The sixth amendment states that a lawyer should be provided, and the U.S. Constitution has
supremacy over state laws.

L How does this all relate back to the Main Idea? Summarize your points.
In conclusion, Gideon should have been appointed a lawyer by the judge.
 Case name: Miranda v. Arizona
Ernesto Miranda was a poor Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1963. Miranda was
arrested after a crime victim identified him in a police lineup. Miranda was charged with rape and
kidnapping and interrogated for two hours while in police custody. The police officers questioning
him did not inform him of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, or of his
Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.
As a result of the interrogation, he confessed in writing to the crimes with which he was charged. His
written statement also included an acknowledgement that he was aware of his right against
1
self-incrimination. During his trial, the prosecution used his confession to obtain a conviction, and
he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison on each count.
Miranda's defense attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. His attorney argued that his
confession should have been excluded from trial because he had not been informed of his rights, nor
had an attorney been present during his interrogation. The police officers involved admitted that
they had not given Miranda any explanation of his rights. They argued, however, that because
Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the past, he must have been aware of his rights. The
Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal and upheld his conviction.
Write a MEAL paragraph responding to the following prompt:
2 Were the plaintiff’s due process rights violated? What evidence do you have that demonstrates a
violation of due process rights?
M Do you think the due process rights were violated and why?
The plaintiff’s due process rights were violated, because the police did not inform him of his
rights.

E What proof did you identify in your paragraph that supports your Main Idea?
The police admitted that they did not inform him of his rights, but felt that since he was convicted
before, he should have known about his rights.

A Explain what the evidence means and why it is important in your own words…
This demonstrates that the police officers did not follow the procedure that is owed to citizens
based on the fifth amendment.

L How does this all relate back to the Main Idea? Summarize your points.
Ernesto Miranda should have been informed of his rights.

1 Case name: Kelo v. New London

The working class neighborhood of Fort Trumbull is located in New London, Connecticut. Several of
the families (including the Kelos and Derys) had lived in the same homes for over a century. The city
of New London experienced a significant economic decline after the closure of a military base which
provided approximately one-third of the region’s jobs.
In 1998, Pfizer, Inc. chose New London as the site for its new research facility to be located next to
the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. The city formed the New London Development Corporation
(NLDC). The NLDC plan allowed a private developer to purchase the property in the Fort Trumbull
area for the development of hotels, office spaces, and some high-end residential areas. The
development plan for the property would require the current residents to move out. The City of
New London forced the homeowners to sell their property using what is called eminent domain –
 the ability of a local government, under the Fifth Amendment, to condemn and take over private
property for “public use” as long as the owners are given due process and just compensation.
Typically, eminent domain is used when a local government needs to build or expand a road, build a
bridge, or otherwise provide for public use and benefit. However, in the 1954 case of Berman v.
Parker, the Court expanded the definition of “public use” to allow a city to condemn areas considered
run down in order to sell them to private investors. The Kelos refused to move out of their home,
and the lower court issued an injunction which allowed them to remain in their homes while the
case was being appealed.
Write a MEAL paragraph responding to the following prompt:
2 Were the plaintiff’s due process rights violated? What evidence do you have that demonstrates a
violation of due process rights?
M Do you think the due process rights were violated and why?

E What proof did you identify in your paragraph that supports your Main Idea?

A Explain what the evidence means and why it is important in your own words…

L How does this all relate back to the Main Idea? Summarize your points.

1 Case name: Scott v. Sandford

Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1799. In 1830, Scott and his master moved to
Missouri, which was a slave state. Four years later, a surgeon in the U.S. army named Dr. John
Emerson bought Scott and moved him to the free state of Illinois. In 1836, Scott and Emerson moved
to Fort Snelling, Wisconsin Territory. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in this territory.
That same year, Scott married a slave named Harriet. In 1838, the Emersons and the Scotts moved
back to Missouri where the Scotts had two daughters. Emerson died in 1843 and left his possessions,
including the Scotts, to his widow Irene. In 1846, Scott asked Mrs. Emerson if he could work for his
freedom. According to Scott, she refused.
Scott sued Mrs. Emerson for "false imprisonment" and battery. Scott argued that he was being held
 illegally because he had become a free man as soon as he had lived in a free state. He claimed he was
taken to a slave state against his will. Many slaves had sued their owners in this way and won their
freedom in the past. In 1847, Emerson won in the Missouri Circuit court because Scott's lawyers
failed to prove that she was holding Scott as a slave. Scott's lawyers successfully argued for a new
trial.
By the time the new case went to trial in 1850, Emerson had moved to Massachusetts leaving her
brother, John Sanford, in charge of Scott's case. The jury agreed that Scott and his family should be
freed in accordance with the doctrine "once free, always free." The case was appealed to the
Missouri Supreme Court in 1852, where two of the three judges found for Emerson and Sanford.
William Scott wrote the decision of the court, stating that states have the power to refuse to enforce
the laws of other states.
***The case is forever known as Scott v. Sandford, because the Supreme Court clerk mistyped the name
of John Sanford.
Write a MEAL paragraph responding to the following prompt:
2 Were the plaintiff’s due process rights violated? What evidence do you have that demonstrates a
violation of due process rights?
M Do you think the due process rights were violated and why?

E What proof did you identify in your paragraph that supports your Main Idea?

A Explain what the evidence means and why it is important in your own words…

L How does this all relate back to the Main Idea? Summarize your points.

Case name: Goss v. Lopez

Nine named students, including a student named Dwight Lopez, were suspended from Marion-
Franklin High School for 10 days for destroying school property and disrupting the learning
environment. In fact, Lopez testified that at least 75 other students were also suspended from his
1 school on the same day.
Ohio Law § 3313.66 empowered the school principal to suspend a student for a period of 10 days or
expel them. The law required that the student and parents be notified of the action 24 hours before
and be given the reason. If the student was expelled the student could appeal to the Board of
Education. However §3313.66 gave no such allowances if the student were suspended.

2 Write a MEAL paragraph responding to the following prompt:

 Were the plaintiff’s due process rights violated? What evidence do you have that demonstrates a
violation of due process rights?
M Do you think the due process rights were violated and why?

E What proof did you identify in your paragraph that supports your Main Idea?

A Explain what the evidence means and why it is important in your own words…

L How does this all relate back to the Main Idea? Summarize your points.
 Case name: Ingraham v. Wright
James Ingraham was a 14-year-old eighth grade student at Charles R. Drew Junior High School in
1970. On October 6, 1970, Ingraham was accused of failing to promptly leave "the stage of the school
auditorium when asked to do so by a teacher". He was then taken to the school principal's office,
where he stated that he was not guilty of the accusation against him. Willie J. Wright, Jr., the
1 principal, ordered Ingraham to bend over so that Wright could beat Ingraham with a spanking
paddle. When Ingraham declined to bend over and allow himself to be beaten, he was forcibly placed
face-down on the top of a table. Lemmie Deliford, the assistant principal, held Ingraham's arms and
Solomon Barnes, an assistant to the principal, held Ingraham's legs. While Ingraham was being
restrained, Wright used a spanking paddle to hit Ingraham more than 20 times. The paddling was so
severe that he suffered a hematoma requiring medical attention and keeping him out of school for
several days.
Write a MEAL paragraph responding to the following prompt:
2 Were the plaintiff’s due process rights violated? What evidence do you have that demonstrates a
violation of due process rights?
M Do you think the due process rights were violated and why?

E What proof did you identify in your paragraph that supports your Main Idea?

A Explain what the evidence means and why it is important in your own words…

L How does this all relate back to the Main Idea? Summarize your points.