THE WARREN

COURT
Min Thant Tin
B.A. (Hons) (English), M.Hum. (Literature & Culture)
(Airlangga University, Indonesia)
WHO IS EARL WARREN?
 In 1953 Dwight D. Eisenhower
appointed Earl Warren as the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court.
 former governor of California
 fair but tough law–and–order politician
 an activist on the bench, greatly
expanding the power of the Supreme
Court
SUPREME COURT UNDER
WARREN
 handed down several landmark rulings
 In 1954 the Court ruled on Brown v. Board of Education,
which effectively ended segregation in public schools.
 The Brown decision was not just a powerful moral
statement, it also demonstrated the power of the Court to
affirm individual rights.
ONE MAN, ONE VOTE
 Baker v. Carr (1962)
federal courts have the power to determine the
constitutionality of a state’s voting districts
 Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
state legislative districts must be equal in population
 In these cases the Warren Court ruled in favor of cities and suburbs,
which were underrepresented in state legislatures in favor of rural
areas.
 In his opinion, Chief Justice Warren wrote that the power of a person’s
vote should not depend on where that person lives.
 As a result, states immediately reapportioned their legislatures, in
essence transforming the political landscape of the country.
CRIMINAL LAWS
 In 1961 the Court ruled in the case of Mapp v. Ohio that evidence
seized illegally could not be used as evidence at trial. (4th Amendment)

 In 1963, in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court ruled that criminal

defendants were entitled to publicly funded counsel. (6th Amendment)
 In 1966, in the famous Miranda v. Arizona case, the Court ruled that
police had to explain legal rights clearly to people in custody. (5th
Amendment)
 MAPP V. OHIO
 On 23 May 1957, police officers entered Dollree Mapp’s home to look for a person
wanted for questioning in a recent bombing and illegal gambling.
 The police found neither the person nor the gambling materials.
 They found illegal obscene material, which Mapp denied owning.
 In the fall of 1958, she was sentenced to 1-7 years.
 No search warrant was produced at the trial, nor was the failure to produce one
accounted for.
 Mapp's lawyer, appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court
 However, the court ruled that illegally seized evidence could be entered into a
criminal trial despite the absence of a search warrant.
 Kearns appealed the case and the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision overturned Mapp's
conviction under the 4th Amendment to the Constitution
 GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT
 In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a Panama City,
Florida, Pool hall and stealing money from the hall's vending machines.
 At trial, Gideon, who could not afford a lawyer himself, requested that an attorney be
appointed to represent him.
 He was told by the judge that Florida only provided attorneys to indigent defendants
charged with capital offenses
 He was sentenced to five years in prison

 Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition (or petition for release from unjust imprisonment) to
the Florida Supreme Court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional because he
lacked a defense attorney at trial.
 After the Florida Supreme Court denied his petition, Gideon appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which reviewed his case in 1963.

The Supreme Court ruled that Gideon's conviction was unconstitutional because Gideon
was denied a defense lawyer at trial.
 The Constitution's Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to counsel in criminal trials
where the defendant is charged with a serious offense even if they cannot afford one
themselves
 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
 In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery.
 Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation.
 During the two-hour interrogation, Miranda allegedly confessed to committing the
crimes, which the police apparently recorded.
 Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison.
 He appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, claiming that the police had
unconstitutionally obtained his confession.
 The court disagreed, however, and upheld the conviction.
 Miranda appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1966.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruled that the prosecution could not introduce
Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to
first inform Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.
 The police duty to give these warnings is compelled by the Constitution's Fifth
Amendment.
 Collectively these cases and others remade the United States’ legal
framework and made Earl Warren a major figure in the shaping of
the way citizens interacted with their government.