Cases
Terms
undefined, object
copy deck
- Barron v Balitmore
- Bill of rights is directly applicable only against actions taken by national gov't
- Weeks v US
- Court held that the exclusionary rule only applied to federal prosectutions
- held 4th amendments to states but held if the evidence was trustworthy it is admissible regardless
- Wolf v Colorado
- State and federal now have same limitaitions with respect to search and siezure, illegally siezed evidense is now inadmissable to states.
- Mapp v Ohio
- Court held that state not required to give indictment or presentment of grand jury, could use information instead.
- Hurtado v California
- Court held cannot compel incriminating testimony
- Mallory v Hogan
- Double jeopardy does not apply to states as long as they appeal based on an error
- Palko v Connecticut
- Double jeopardy was fundamental, and the double jeopardy provision applies to states
- Benton v Maryland
- held right to speedy trial applicable to states
- Klopfer v North Carolina
- defendants are entitled to public trial, both state and federal.
- In re Oliver
- penalty of 2 years or fine of 300 requires jury trial
- Duncan v Louisiana
- held penalty of up to 6 months requires a jury trial
- Baldwin v New York
- guarantee the right of confrontation and cross-examination.
- Pointer v Texas
- indigent defendant right to have counsel assigned by court- but only those accused of felony
- Gideon v Wainwright
- counsel could be appointed only in those cases where special circumstances exist.
- Betts v Brady
- All defendants facing jail sentence are entitled to counsel.
- Argersinger v Hamlin
- Bar against cruel and unusual punishment applicable to states
- Robinson v California
- preliminary hearing that held indigent defendant has a consitutional right to the appointment of counsel under 6th and 14th amendment
- Coleman v Alabama
- Prosecutor must give defense a copy of an accomplice's confession
- Brady v Maryland
- Court approved the use of plea bargaining that resulted in peas in criminal cases.
- Santobello v New York
- non-unanimous stte jury verdict where a jury of twelve was used and where the votes of nine of the 12 were needed for decision
- Apodoca v Oregon
- smaller juries are permissable under the 6th amendment
- Williams v Florida
- use of-unanimous verdicts by 6 members of juries on non-petty offenses to be unconsitutional, applied retroactively.
- Brown v Louisiana
- peremptory challenges not allowed to exclude potential jurors solely on race.
- Batson v Kentucky
- The court determinde that enhanced sentences based on facts that had not been presented for jruy determination violated the 6th amendment right to jury trial
- US v Booker
- 4th amendments exclusionary rule is to deter unreasonable searches, no matter how probative their fruits
- Oregon v Elstad
- American agents conduct seraches, siezures and/or arrests in foreign countries 4th amendment will not preevent introduction of that evidence.
- US v Verdugo-Urquidez
- expanded sweep of the exclusionary rule to require suppression of evidence derived from illegally obtained secondary evidence
- Nix v Williams
- Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrin in this case, held that the exclusionary rule applies to evidence derived from the primary illegally siezed evidence.
- Silverthorne lumber co v US
- permits a defendant to exclude evidence seized from locations where the defendant possessed not consitutional expectation of privacy- both illegally seized evidence and evidence derived from that evidence are inadmissable
- Wong Sun v US
- Independant source rule allows trial court introduction of evidence obtained or discovered during illegal search
- Murray v US
- illegally seized evidence can be argued that it has been purged of its taint bc sufficient time and/or events have transpired since the search or discovery
- Nardon v US
- adoption of the good faith exception to exclusionary rule
- US v Leon/ Mass v Sheppard
- when the exclusionary rule would not apply with respect to the good faith exception
- US v Martin
- in parole revocation hearings, exclusion has no applicablility because its use would be incompatable with such hearings. Exclusionary rule should not apply only where the deterrence benefits outweigh the costs to society that the rule exacted when applied
- Pennsylvania v Scott
- Courts do not have to apply exclusionary rule when defendant attempts to assert a third party's 4th amendment rights in an effort to exclude evidence that did not violate the defendants constitutional rights
- Alderman v US
- police officer relied on a statute that purported to give rights to search which were later deemed unconstitutional, the fruits of the search were not excluded
- Illinois v Krull
- party to criminal case may use eveidence illegally obtained to impeach a defendent without inviting the application of the exclusion rule.
- Walder v US
- 4th amendment exclusionary rule does not mandate supression of evidence in the basence of probable cause where the erroneous finding of probable cause resulted from clerical errors of court employees
- Arizona v Evans
- court rejected an invitation to apply 4th amendment and its exclusionary rule in a manner that would exlcude grand jury consideration of testimony based no illegally seized evidence.
- US v Calandra
- Hwere the exclusionary rule offers no lgal remedy for alleged federal gov't misconduct, a direct suit against the officers may be the only remedy available.
- Bivens v Six Uknown Named agents
- The government must have seized the evidence from a place where the defendant personally had a right to privacy which society generally recognizes as reasonable.
- Minnesota v Carter
- mere guest in an automobile had no expectation of privacy in the automobile, and he may not use exclusionary rule.
- Rakas v Illinois
- view of an overnight guest: he seeks shelter in anothers home precisely because it provides him with privacy. and he possessed standing to argue for his privacy.
- Minnesota v Olson
- There is a distinction between searches and seizures that take place on a man's property-home or office- and those carried out elsewhere. Need a warrant to enact a search on persons property, also warrant must be issued by a nuetral detached magistrate
- Coolidge v New Hampshire
- Defendant does not have th right to be present or the righgt to be represented by counsel at a probable cause hearing. They are entitled to timely hearing when arrested without a warrant and charged by information. confrontation and cross-examination are
- Gerstein v Pugh
- Court approved of the consitutionality of warrantless arrests, holding that the 4th amendment reflected the ancient common-law rule that a law enforcement official had the power to arrest if a crime was comitted in his presence
- US v Watson
- Police are prohibited from making warrantless, nonconsensual entry into a suspects home in order to make a routine felony arrest.
- Payton v New YOrk
- to establish probable cause requires only a probability or substantial changce of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity. established the "totality of circumstances test.
- Illinois v Gates
- COurt replaced the fleeing felon rule with the defense of life rule on the use of deadly force.
- Tennessee v Garner
- there must be either a submission to the will of the law enforement official or a physical application of force sufficient to put the person in costudy of the officer.
- California v Hodari D
- judicial determination of probable cause must generally be made within 48 hrs following a warrantless arrest.
- Riverside v McLaughlin
- good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to evidence seized incident to an arrest resulting from an inaccurate computer record indicating that there is an arrest warrant for suspect.
- Arizona v Evans
- 4th amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense punishable only by fine, given probable cause to arrest.
- Atwater v City of lago vista