Watkins vs United States

In 1966, Gary Duncan was charged in Louisiana with simple battery, a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years in prison and a three hundred dollar fine. Duncan requested a jury trial, but at the time, Louisiana granted jury trials only to cases punishable by execution or imprisonment at hard labor, and the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial had not yet been incorporated against the states. Duncan’s request was denied. He was convicted after a bench trial and sentenced to sixty days in prison and a ten-dollar fine. Duncan appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case. Duncan then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review, asserting that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteed his right to a jury trial.

Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court. Three tests are used from previous cases to determine whether a right of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are extended to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The first test is determining whether the right to a trial by jury is a “fundamental principle of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions.” It also needs to be determined if this right is “basic in our system of jurisprudence” and if the right to a trial by jury is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.” White determines that a right to a trial by jury passes these tests. He determines that the right of a trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” The right to a jury trial was created to avoid abuse by the Government. A right to a jury trial is a safeguard against a corrupt prosecutor or judge. Due to this, the right to a jury trial it is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which becomes fundamental to all States. In distinguishing a petty offense from a serious offense, the penalty of the crime is viewed. The punishment authorized by the State is used “as a gauge of its social and ethical judgments.” Louisiana law’s penalty for simple battery of imprisonment of up to two years and a fine is not considered to be a petty offense. Compared to the federal system, petty crimes are those punishable with up to six months in prison and a $500 fine. A crime punishable by two years in prison, by the standards of this country, is determined to be a serious offense and not the

The question brought up to the court resulting from this case was, was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches? The Supreme Court ruled

When the case finally made it to the Supreme Court, five justices voted in favor of Hayes, who was the district attorney. Four of the justices agreed that Branzburg had no right to confidentiality and should have given the court the identities they had requested. One of the Supreme Court justices handed down a dissenting opinion. The opinion handed down stated that Branzburg’s rights should have been protected unless the court could prove three things: First they had to prove probable cause that Branzburg had information to a crime that the Grand Jury was investigating. Secondly the court had to prove that there was no other alternative to obtaining the desired information on the two individuals identities except from Branzburg himself. Finally the court had to prove that there was strong desire for the government to

The court's decision was that it was wrong of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to deny the inmate's right to appeal the case. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the murderer was most likely the husband and not Paul Gregory House (“House v. Bell”). The case decision would cause the denial of habeas corpus to be removed and the case would be instated with the help of the new evidence.

In the case of Fare v. Michael C., the police arrested the sixteen-year-old Michael C. under the suspicion of murder, and he was transported to the police station for a custodial interrogation (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, before the interrogation began Michael C. was advised of his Miranda Rights, and Michael C. specifically asked to consult his probation officer, and not a lawyer (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Consequently, the police refused to allow Michael C. to speak with his state probation officer, and they continued to question him about the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Michael C. continued to answer the investigator’s questions and he drew sketches, which ultimately implicated him in the murder (Henry-Mays, 2007). Now that we understand the general facts of the case, let us examine the key facts and issues, which lead to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

Appellant Brady was found guilty of first degree murder by the Maryland Court system. During his trial hearing Brady admitted to participating in the organization and forethought of the crime with a partner, although plead that he himself did not commit the crime. After disclosing his involvement, Brady’s lawyer admitted to his guilt but asked for a lesser penalty since Brady didn’t commit the murder. Before trial Brady’s council asked for all relevant information to the trial and were given most, but not all of it. The withholding of evidence was a violation of due process laws in which a new trial was requested. A new trial was granted but only for sentencing and not a retrial of fact.

In today’s society the criminal justice system that we live in is flawed in so many ways. Some say that it works while others go to prison or jail for crimes that they didn’t commit. In this paper I will be covering specific examples from the book, The Innocent Man, where the defendant’s rights were violated. John Grisham talks about innocent men being innocent and convicted for murder and sent to unlawful court proceedings. In this paper I will be focusing mainly on the violations of his 6th amendment. The 6th amendment is the right to effective assistance of counsel.

This sympathetic attitude toward the clause should not lead us to intrude our ideas of propriety into the conduct of congressional hearings. The rule laid down by the Court today merely adds another means for interference and delay in investigations and trials, without adding to the protection of the constitutional right of freedom from self-incrimination.

It is the right of every citizen in this nation to have his or her case decided by a fair and impartial jury. The selection of the jury panel is one of great importance and one that can have a great effect on the outcome of the case. Therefore, it is obvious that the attorneys have a

Within Justice J. Harlan’s dissenting argument in Katz v. United States (1967), Justice Harlan re-identifies the main principles of the two-fold requirement—known as, the reasonable expectation of privacy test (R.E.P.). According to Justice Harlan, the first fold, of this two part fold requirement, must illustrate “a person […] [exhibiting] an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as “reasonable”.” Thus, we are able to utilize Justice Harlan’s dissenting argument of the two-fold requirement—the R.E.P. test—in regards to Turner’s attempt for overturning her conviction.

On June 23, 1969, the Supreme Court issued a 6-2 choice expressing that the instance of Benton v. Maryland (docket no. 201) ought to be turned around and remanded and maintaining the law being referred to [Fifth Amendment (Double Jeopardy)] as established. The judgment laid on the Court's power over legal survey at the state level. It was chosen by a feeling of the court (orally contended) and was liberal in nature.

The Due Process Model of the criminal justice system’s main focus is on fairness during trial. One of the ways this “fairness” is established is through the Due Process Test, also known as the Matthews v. Eldridge Test. This test has three criteria to ensure that the individual has received due process under the Constitution; they are as follows “the balance of the importance of the interest at stake, balances the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards, and the balance of the government’s interest in the trial” (Matthews v. Eldridge Test, n.d.). This test along with major court cases such as, Plata v. Davis/Schwarzenegger, Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, and Plata v. Brown, have helped to ensure that prisoners are not incarcerated wrongly and that their living conditions are Constitutional. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey discusses the question of whether Yeskey being excluded from being able to participate in boot camp because he had hypertension, was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This discussion ended with the Supreme Court ruling that the exclusion of Yeskey was a violation of this act (Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, n.d.). Plata v. Brown is a court case about the overpopulation in prisons. The prisons during the early 2000’s were severely overcrowded, which led to a multitude of other problems, such as

The main reasons that this is an controversial case is because the public wants to know about the activities of Congress and the President in a publicized way. So that they can have complete transparency But that would mean, among other things, the rejection of all forms of confidentiality in the Court’s operations. Confidentiality of the court and all the individuals engaged with the court system. As the judges, lawyers, juries, witnesses and lastly the convicted. Which can go against certain legal rights that every individual has the right to have. “Its guarantee will be met as long as the court is open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves with decorum, and