problem 7 - Supreme Court. This means in Christophers case...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Obadele Brown November 14, 2007 Law and Society Problem 7 1. According to  Morgan v. State,  the District Attorney can compel  Christopher to remove his shirt to show the jury his tattoo because it does  not violate the Constitution. It is a “legitimate avenue of identification” that  the court uses to help solve cases. In Morgan v. State, Morgan had to put  on a jacket to prove a point that it was his and it was affirmed in the 
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Supreme Court. This means in Christophers case he is obligated to show his tattoo to the court for identification purposes. 2. This type of in court identification would not violate Christophers constitutional rights because it is not a matter of testimonial or communicative response. Self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment is defined as a testimonial or communicative response that is incriminating....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course LAW SBA 1001 taught by Professor Hodge during the Spring '08 term at Temple.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online