This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: June 1, 2010 Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968) 391- book 145- page of the book • Convicted in LA court of simple battery (punishable by 2 years in prison and or $300 fine) • Had requested a jury trial, but was denied under LA law (LA law only required jury if punishable by hard labor or death). • convicted- sentenced to 60 days in jail and fined $150. Appealed to US Supreme Court. • Legal issue: “was the state’s refusal to give the defendant a jury trial for a crime that carried two-years imprisonment as the max sentence a violation of the constitutional right to a jury trial specified in the 6th as incorporated by the 14th Due Process Clause?” • Holding: A crime punishable by two years imprisonment, even though classified as a misdemeanor, is a serious crime, and therefore, the defendant is entitled to a jury of his peers. 6th- “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State...... D v LA “because we believe that trial by jury in criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice, we hold that the 14th guarantees a right of a jury trial in all cases which-- were they tried in federal court- would come within the 6th guarantee.” remember: state constitutions and statutes ALSO play a role!!!!! • Supreme Court cases apply to ALL states-- BUT, individual states (through their Constitutions or statutes) can provide MORE (never less) protections. • this is true, often, when the wording is very similar or, at times, even it is EXACTLY the same.. it is simply a matter of how the state court interprets its meaning. US Constitution-- State Constitutions • 4th amendment vs. Oregon constitution (article 1, section 9) • Oregon v MAD (2008)- example of US v state supreme court • principal receives tip that MAD was selling drugs in park outside the school (from a source who was not reliable) • MAD was brought to officer, refused search, but it was conducted anyway. weed found. • in juvenile court, he was adjudged delinquent, despite arguing it was an illegal search. • US supreme court, in 1985, had ruled such searches allowable under 4th. • the Oregon appellate court said this was an illegal search under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. • “searches under the O con. do not depend on the privacy that one EXPECTS FROM THE GOVT (as in the 4th), but on the privacy that one HAS A RIGHT TO EXPECT FROM THE GOVT.” (emphasis added). And so, the case was overturned. • state con. thus, can create much greater right than those recognized under the Federal Con. Rochin v. California • Antonio Rochin was convicted of illegally possessing two morphine caps. He had challenged the sue of the two caps against him ........
View Full Document
- Summer '10
- Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution