In the 1964 case The Court ruled that the defendant had been denied of his

In the 1964 case the court ruled that the defendant

This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 18 pages.

In the 1964 case, The Court ruled that the defendant had been denied of his constitutional rights. Escobedo Was not allowed to see a lawyer after he confessed. o 2)Negative precedents: Both cases raise the same question did the 4th amendmentextend Bill of Rights protection suit cases tried under state laws? Until the 1960sthe amendment had always been limited to federal court cases. 3) Changing Supreme Court rulings: Beginning in the early 1960s, the court began to the side of heels on the basis of selective incorporation . This meant that the court page individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights and apply them to State cases. Previous decisions had already been made involving a) Protection against self-incrimination ( Malloy v. Hogan ), b) The right of the poor to free legal counsel ( Gideon vs. Wainwright ), and c) Protection against unreasonable search and seizure ( Mapp v. Ohio ) o 4) Decision: Chief justice Warren delivered the majority opinion in the Miranda case in 1966. Warren took note of the stresses that arrest and questioning place on a suspect, so Under these conditions, suspects held in custody must be informed in clear terms that a) They have the right to remain silent and b) They have the right to consult with an attorney. Therefore the decision says that all of us innocent or guilty are sealed by the Constitution from the misuse of Power by law enforcement agencies. Results of the case: This case left a legacy of change. Police officers had to learn new methods of questioning suspects and still win convictions while following the rules and use proper investigative techniques. (I wrote so many notes…) The USSC brought state courts into line with federal guarantee with the right to counsel and against self-incrimination. 9. Other Important Supreme Court Cases Schenck v. US : German World War 1 a group of socialists work use of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by distributing 15,000 leaflets to draft-age men. The leaflets urged resistance to induction and the defendants were arrested on charges of obstructing the draft. The defendant claimed that the statue of a sword typing their arrest was in violation of their first amendment rights of free speech. The arrests were upheld by Supreme Court
Image of page 16
(SC). The Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect speech that encouraged insubordination in time of War. Korematsu vs United States: After the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt issued an executive order that created a number of military districts. The order game authorities the power to exclude all persons from those districts who might endanger National Security. In May 1942 the order was issued to exclude all people of Japanese origin from the west coast and send them to the relocation camps throughout the country. Fred korematsu challenged the government's right to do so. Everyone was afraid of the Japanese of being spies. The court said that it was okay to relocate them because it is necessary in this time of extreme threat. At the time, we were in the war and so that in times of war, the individual rights are put first.
Image of page 17
Image of page 18

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 18 pages?

  • Summer '16
  • Mrs. Welty
  • The Ambassadors, The American, American Govt Chap 15&16 Notes, Supreme Court of the United States, US Supreme Court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes