Adamson v California

Adamson v California - explicitly denied the application of...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Adamson v California 1946 I. Facts a. Adamson was convicted in California of murder in the first degree. During the trial, the prosecutor, in accordance with a California law, made comments to the jury which highlighted Adamson's decision not to testify on his own behalf. b. II. Legal Questions presented a. Is a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself applicable in state courts and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause? b. III. Answers a. A divided Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Citing past decisions such as Twining v. New Jersey (1908), which
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: explicitly denied the application of the due process clause to the right against self-incrimination, and Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Justice Reed argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the first ten amendments to individuals at the state level. In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states. IV. Reasons (by ___) a. Form of argument b. Legal doctrines V. Dissent reasons VI. Concurring reasons Notes...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/03/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online