Halberstam Sp02 Criminal Procedure outline

Halberstam Sp02 Criminal Procedure outline - DUE PROCESS:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
DUE PROCESS: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND INCORPORATION 1. PALKO v. CONNECTICUT (1937) A Statute of Connecticut permitting appeals in criminal cases to be taken by the state is challenged by appellant as an infringement of the 14 th Amendment. “Of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty; a principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.” Double jeopardy, in a state action, is not so fundamental a concept that it is incorporated by the 14 th Amendment against the states. THIS CASE IS OVERRULED BY BENTON v. MARYLAND , 1969, where the SUPREME COURT declares that “the double jeopardy prohibition of the5th Amendment represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage, and that it should apply to the states through the 14 th Amendment. 2. ADAMSON v. CALIFORNIA (1947) A California law permit the failure of a defendant to explain or deny evidence against him to be commented upon by the court and counsel and to be considered by court and jury. “It does not seem unfair, when there is evidence before a jury, to require the defendant to choose between leaving the adverse evidence unexplained and subjecting him to impeachment through disclosure of former crimes.” FRANKFURTER—Cannot offend the “Canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of justice of Americans. NATURAL LAW/FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS. BLACK—Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION WAS MADE APPLICABLE TO THE STATES IN MALLOY v. HOGAN (1964). The specific holding of Adamson, concerning the rule allowing comment on a defendant’s failure to testify, was OVERRULED in GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA (1965) 3. ROCHIN v. CALIFORNIA (1952) Stomach pump case. “A serious question is raised as to the limitations which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the conduct of criminal proceedings by the state. “This is conduct that shocks the conscience.” Convictions cannot be brought about by methods that offend a sense of justice. 4. GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT (1965) Zones of privacy and penumbras. Right to Privacy.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
HARLAN CONCURRENCE—cannot violate basic values implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. 5. DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA (1968) Duncan is convicted of simple battery in LA. He is punishable by up to two years in jail. He does not get a jury trial. THE 14 th AMENDMENT GUARANTEES A RIGHT OF JURY TRIAL IN ALL CRIMINAL CASES WHICH, WERE THEY TO BE TRIED IN A FEDERAL COURT, WOULD COME WITHIN THE 6 th AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE. THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL 1. POWELL v. ALABAMA (1932) “In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable of adequately making his own defense because of ignorance, feeble mindedness, illiteracy, etc., it is the duty of the court, whether requested or not, to assign counsel for him as a requisite of due process of law; and that duty is not discharged by an assignment at such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the prep and
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/14/2008 for the course LAW 7118 taught by Professor Halberstam during the Spring '02 term at Yeshiva.

Page1 / 18

Halberstam Sp02 Criminal Procedure outline - DUE PROCESS:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online