Supreme Court During The 1960s

A landmark case that shifted the attention to due process was Miranda vs. Arizona. In this historical landmark case the Miranda Rights got there famous name from this man Ernesto Miranda. The attention shifted to due process because of the fact that Miranda pled his rights were not read to him, therefore he did not know he could not self-incriminate himself. He claimed she was coerced to giving his confession (Miranda v. Arizona). From then on the criminal justice system new they had to do something about criminals trying to flee from the law by saying their rights were not read to them. Police departments everywhere new something had to be done. Therefore the Miranda rights were born all criminals were being arrested had to be read their Miranda Rights, therefore they could not plead that their rights were not read to them that is why the Miranda Rights is an important part of the due process. It is not fair to the suspect to arrest him and not to let them know why they are being detained, or

The U.S Supreme Court adopted the exclusionary rule to prevent the use of inappropriate behavior and violations of an individual’s rights by government officials through the use of the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule protects the rights of the people under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, and requires evidence obtained directly or indirectly as a result of government violations cannot be used as proof of guilt in a court of law [1]

When the English were colonizing North America, they brought with them their laws. Being from the British Common Law system, the settlers understood how that system worked, so they modeled their own government using Common Law.

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

The United States has a unique criminal justice system that stems from the unique rights granted to its citizens by the Constitution. The United States Constitution grants the most basic rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and no citizen can be denied these rights without due process of law. Due process is the way in which the criminal justice system ensures that the right person is punished for the right crime. This process includes certain rights of the accused and specific procedures that must be followed to the letter or the accused could be released without having punished for a crime he or she could have

The reason we have rules in life are simple, to keep order when there is chaos and to guide our behavior in a way that is acceptable by society’s standards. The reason we have laws and procedures to carry out those laws are simple as well, to keep the government from infringing on its citizen’s constitutional rights. If the government was to rid itself of the exclusionary rule, then it has the potential to be infringing on its citizens rights. The government could essentially walk into anyone who is suspected of a crime’s house and seize whatever they feel is evidence. The exclusionary rule is an important constitutional right within U.S. legal system, but just as it is with most of the legal systems the exclusionary rule is not without

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

     With the exclusionary rule in effect in all fifty states, a person who is convicted of a crime has the possibility of getting off because of police tampering with evidence or obtaining pertinent evidence without a warrant. This alone allows criminals to walk because of lack of evidence that is admissible to the court room (Standen 1). The exclusionary rule also makes the prosecutions job harder in the case that if an officer has tampered with evidence that was pertinent to her case or has obtained evidence in the case illegally without a warrant. This makes her job harder since the evidence that was found illegally is not admissible to the jury which makes it harder to convict without enough

A great example of a case law that I learned of that used the Exclusionary Rule would be the Case Law of, Weeks v. United States. Weeks involved the appeal of a defendant who had been convicted based on evidence that had been seized by a federal agent without a warrant or other constitutional justification. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant's conviction, thereby creating what is known as the "exclusionary rule." In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states. The early cases, which I learned about however, were limited to federal prosecutions.

For instance, there was an issue about a 13 year-old boy whom the police felt of involvement with robbery. The police did not grant the boy a miranda warning to notify his rights. So after the police questioned the boy, the supreme court denied the boy’s request to throw out the statements he made to police because he did not undergo the proper miranda notification.

After some consideration about my original two choices, I’ve decided to focus on the exclusionary rule as my topic for the final project paper. To be honest, with the other papers, and projects I’ve been preparing for, I really haven’t gotten far into my project other than finding some articles from the Ivy Tech online library that pertain to the exclusionary rule. So far some of the articles I’ve found for the project are “IS THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE DEAD?”, and “THE DUE PROCESS EXCLUSIONARY RULE”. In these two articles, both go into detail about the arguments for both for, and against the exclusionary rule, while giving reasons to modify the rule to satisfy both sides. While these articles will help me understand the pro/con arguments, I have

There are many different reasons a person can find themselves in a court as the defendant.

In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.