This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
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 states 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