• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/168

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

168 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
In Katz v. United States (1967) where did the FBI place its listening devices to investigate Charles Katz?
The FBI had recorded Katz conversation via an electronic eavesdropping device attached to the exterior of the phone booth.
In Katz v. United States (1967) does Justice Stewart think the question of whether the FBI physically invaded the phone booth is important?
Justice Stewart wrote, "No less than an individual in a business office, in a friend's apartment, or in a taxicab, a person in a telephone booth may rely upon the protection of the Fourth Amendment."
In Katz v. United States (1967) was the listening and recording of Katz’s conversations a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Yes
In Katz v. United States (1967) according to Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion, what areas does the Fourth Amendment protect (see the second paragraph of his concurring opinion)?
In his concurrence, Justice Harlan formulated a two-part test for determining whether police activity constitutes a search. Harlan's test, not the majority's test, is the most common formulation cited by courts. Something is a search within the meaning of the Fourth amendment if (1) the individual "has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy," and (2) society is prepared to recognize that this expectation is (objectively) reasonable.
Did the Court’s ruling in Olmstead v. U.S. protect telephone conversations from government eavesdropping?
The use of wiretapped conversations as incriminating evidence did not violate their Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination because they was not forcibly or illegally made to conduct those conversations. Instead, the conversations were voluntarily made between the parties and their associates. Moreover, the parties' Fourth Amendment rights were not infringed because mere wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. These terms refer to an actual physical examination of one's person, papers, tangible material effects, or home - not their conversations. This case was reversed by Katz v. U.S. (1967).
Kyllo v. United States (2001): According to the Court, was the use of a thermal imaging device (to detect concentrations of heat inside a home) a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Did such imaging require a warrant?
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant.
What governmental officials have the authority to issue search warrants?
Warrants are typically issued by courts but can also be issued by one of the chambers of the United States Congress or other legislatures (via the call of the house motion) and other political entities.
What is probable cause? Why is it important in the context of search warrants?
Information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)
In Illinois v. Gates (1983) what information did the police have that led them to believe that the Gates’s were drug dealers?
An anonymous tip
In Illinois v. Gates (1983) was this information sufficient to establish “probable cause” as described in Aguilar v. Texas?
Justice Rehnquist stated:
We agree with the Illinois Supreme Court that an informant's "veracity," "reliability" and "basis of knowledge" are all highly relevant in determining the value of his report. We do not agree, however, that these elements should be understood as entirely separate and independent requirements to be rigidly exacted in every case[...] [T]hey should be understood simply as closely intertwined issues that may usefully illuminate the common sense, practical question whether there is "probable cause" to believe that contraband or evidence is located in a particular place.
In Illinois v. Gates (1983), did the Court use the Aguilar-Spinneli test to decide this case?
No
In Illinois v. Gates (1983), with what sort of test did the Court replace the Aguilar-Spinelli test?
It put into place the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test. A totality of the circumstances standard suggests that there is no single deciding factor, that one must consider all the facts, the context, and conclude from the whole picture whether there is probable cause, or whether an alleged detention is really a detention, or whether a citizen acted under color of law. The primary guide for this kind of substantive rule is the fact patterns from cases in which the courts have found that the criteria were met.
In Illinois v. Gates (1983), Did the information possessed by the police in this case satisfy the new test (that is, did the Court rule that the evidence should be admitted or excluded)?
The court allowed the evidence
What are the two elements of probable cause identified in Aguilar v. Texas?
[T]he magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was creditable or his information reliable.
What is the Search Incident to a Valid Arrest exception?
This rule permits an officer to perform a warrantless search during or immediately after a lawful arrest. This search is limited to only the person arrested and the area immediately surrounding the person in which the person may gain possession of a weapon, in some way effect an escape, or destroy or hide evidence.
Under normal circumstances, who can give permission for a consent search?
A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search. The person has the right to refuse to give consent, and except in limited cases may revoke consent at any point during the search.
What are the two conditions for a valid consent search?
Fourth Amendment rights, like other constitutional rights, may be waived, and one may consent to search of his person or premises by officers who have not complied with the Amendment. The Court, however, has insisted that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the voluntariness of the consent and awareness of the right of choice.
What is the Plain View Doctrine?
The "Plain View Doctrine" is the rule that a law enforcement officer may make a search and seizure without obtaining a search warrant if evidence of criminal activity or the product of a crime can be seen without entry or search. Example: a policeman stops a motorist for a minor traffic violation and can see in the car a pistol or a marijuana plant on the back seat, giving him "reasonable cause" to enter the vehicle to make a search.
In Arizona v. Gant (2009), why was Grant arrested?
Gant was arrested for an outstanding warrant on a suspended license.
In Arizona v. Gant (2009), how far away was Gant from his car when arrested?
Police arrested Gant in a friend's 10-to-12 feet from Gant’s car
In Arizona v. Gant (2009), what was found in Gant’s car?
Drugs and a handgun.
In Arizona v. Gant (2009), what justification did the state give for searching Gant’s car?
The police were acting to the bright-line protocol of "if arrested, then search.
In Arizona v. Gant (2009), According to Justice Steven’s Opinion for the Court, what two factors would justify searching a car after arresting someone? Were either of these factors present in this case?
In an opinion delivered by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court held that police may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest only if it is reasonable to believe that the arrestee might access the vehicle at the time of the search or that the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. The court held that the Safety Search exception did not apply to this case because Gant was handcuffed away from his car.
What level of belief that a crime has occurred is necessary before police can make a “stop” compared to an arrest?
In order to make a lawful traffic stop, an officer must be able to articulate why they suspect a criminal act may have occurred (i.e. erratic driving, high speed, matching vehicle or driver description to another crime, or some other indication that a law is being violated). In other words, an officer needs a reason to make a traffic stop and cannot stop someone simply on a whim.
How can police satisfy the “probable cause” requirement to make an arrest?
Probable cause for arrest exists only when the facts known to the arresting officer "would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime." The belief must be based on objective facts and circumstances and not on the personal opinions and suspicions of law enforcement.
Why are courts more likely to allow warrantless searches of cars than of other places?
An automobile search is a warrantless search of a car when police have probable cause to believe the car contains evidence of a crime. The Court permits officers to search cars more freely than houses. Due to the mobility of cars, officers may give up opportunities to seize evidence if they take the time to get a warrant.
What is a Safety Search?
A safety Search is a search designed to make sure the person the police officer is searching is not armed
What is a Loss of Evidence Search?
A police officer can search you if they think you'll wash your hands or something else to get rid of evidence.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), why did Officer McFadden stop the men on the street?
detective Martin McFadden saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting in a way the officer thought suspicious. Detective McFadden observed the two proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece—in all, roughly a dozen trips. After one of these trips, they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly after a brief conversation. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up", Detective McFadden followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), how is a “stop” different from an “arrest”?
A stop is different from an arrest. An arrest is a lengthy process in which the suspect is taken to the police station and booked, whereas a stop involves only a temporary interference with a person's liberty. If the officer uncovers further evidence during the frisk, the stop may lead to an actual arrest, but if no further evidence is found, the person will be released.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), did Officer McFadden search the men? What did he find?
Officer McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt a pistol in his overcoat pocket. He reached inside the overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove the gun. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed Terry's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), did the Supreme Court uphold or overturn the conviction of Terry and the others?
In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), what reasons did the Court give for ruling this way?
Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), After this decision, what rights do police have to stop and frisk people on the street? What has to happen before they can conduct a “stop and frisk”?
In order for a Stop and Frisk to be valid, an officer must believe that some type of criminal activity is taking place and the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
What can happen to a British police officer who searches someone’s home without a warrant?
The evidence is excluded
What is the rationale behind the exclusionary rule in the United States?
To stop over zealous police officers from infringing individuals right to privacy.
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), for what reason did the police come to Mapp’s house on may 23, 1957?
When the Cleveland Police Department received a tip that Dollree Mapp and her daughter were harboring a suspected bombing fugitive, they immediately went to her house and demanded entrance.
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), of what crime was Mapp eventually found guilty?
Possessing obscene materials
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), what is the main holding of this case?
The court declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), what is the purpose of the exclusionary rule, according to Justice Clark?
To stop overzealous police officers
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), how is “judicial integrity” supported by the exclusionary rule?
In the Court's language, the Court feels that the judges will be more prone to acting fairly than the police
U.S. v. Leon (1984), of what crime was Leon accused?
Leon was indicted for violating federal drug laws.
U.S. v. Leon (1984), what reason supported his argument that the evidence against Leon should not be used at the trial?
A judge concluded that the affadavit for the search warrant was insufficient; it did not establish the probable cause necessary to issue the warrant. Thus, the evidence obtained under the warrant could not be introduced at Leon's trial.
U.S. v. Leon (1984), did the Court rule that evidence seized with a defective warrant can be used in court? Under what conditions?
The justices held that evidence seized on the basis of a mistakenly issued search warrant could be introduced at trial.
U.S. v. Leon (1984), when must evidence seized with a defective warrant be suppressed?
White clarifies that suppression of evidence should continue in cases where the magistrate was misled by information supplied in an affidavit in "bad faith"
In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), what were the police looking for in Hudson’s home?
Drugs and firearms.
In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), what was wrong with the way the police executed their search warrant?
They knocked and announced, but only waited 3-5 seconds.
In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), what is the point of the “knock and announce” rule, according to Rehnquist’s opinion for the Court?
Justice Scalia wrote that the knock-and-announce rule was meant to prevent violence, property-damage, and impositions on privacy, not to prevent police from conducting a search for which they have a valid warrant.
In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), does the Court uphold or overturn Hudson’s conviction?
The court upholds Hudson's conviction
In Herring v. United States (2009), for what was Bennie Herring arrested?
Mark Anderson, an investigator with the Coffee County Sheriff's Department, asked the department's warrant clerk to check for any outstanding warrants; the warrant clerk in the neighboring Dale County Sheriff's Department was contacted, and advised that there was an outstanding warrant. Within fifteen minutes, the Dale County clerk called back to warn the Coffee County sheriff's department that there had been a clerical mistake: the warrant had been recalled five months prior. But it was too late; Anderson had already arrested Herring and searched his vehicle, discovering firearms and methamphetamine.
In Herring v. United States (2009), what illegal items were found on him when he was arrested?
Firearms and methamphetamine.
In Herring v. United States (2009), what was the problem with his arrest?
His warrant for arrest was invalid/expired
In Herring v. United States (2009), did the Supreme Court allow the police to prosecute him for the illegal items?
Yes. The court allowed evidence found from the search to be allowed in court.
In Herring v. United States (2009), according to Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion of the Court, did the police deliberately violate the Fourth Amendment in this case?
Chief Justice Roberts held that a criminal defendant's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when police mistakes that lead to unlawful searches are merely the result of isolated negligence and "not systematic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements." Evidence obtained under these circumstances is admissible and not subject to the exclusionary rule.
In Herring v. United States (2009), according to Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, are record-keeping errors likely to cause lots of people to be searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Justice Ginsburg argued that an intact exclusionary rule provides a strong incentive for police compliance with respect to the Fourth Amendment and its erosion in this case was not warranted.
In Escobedo v. Illinois (1963), of what was Danny Escobedo accused?
Escobedo was accused of shooting his brother-in-law, and was not allowed to see his attorney.
In Escobedo v. Illinois (1963), how, according to the Supreme Court, did the police “coerce” Escobedo into making statements that incriminated him?
The polie held Escobedo for 14 hours without an attorney
In Escobedo v. Illinois (1963), when, according to this case, does a suspect have a right to have an attorney present?
As soon as the suspect is taken into custody.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), of what was Ernesto Miranda accused?
In March 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for robbery. He later confessed to raping an 18-year-old woman two days earlier.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), was the suspect coerced?
No, but he was not informed of his right to an attorney
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), Did Miranda ever ask for a lawyer?
No
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), what does the Court opinion require police to tell people accused of crimes?
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), what attitude toward confessions does the Court decision (as demonstrated in the majority opinion) show, according to Justice White?
White further warned the dire consequences of the majority opinion, I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.
In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), of what was Ernesto Miranda accused?
In March 1963, Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested for robbery. He later confessed to raping an 18-year-old woman two days earlier.
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), was the suspect coerced?
No, but he was not informed of his right to an attorney
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), Did Miranda ever ask for a lawyer?
No
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), what does the Court opinion require police to tell people accused of crimes?
The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him
In Miranda v. Arizona (1965), what attitude toward confessions does the Court decision (as demonstrated in the majority opinion) show, according to Justice White?
White further warned the dire consequences of the majority opinion, I have no desire whatsoever to share the responsibility for any such impact on the present criminal process.
In some unknown number of cases, the Court's rule will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets and to the environment which produced him, to repeat his crime whenever it pleases him. As a consequence, there will not be a gain, but a loss, in human dignity
In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), what was the crime Seibert was accused of?
Patrice Seibert, a suspect in a fatal arson, was arrested and taken to the police station.
In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), did the officer who interviewed her forget to read the Miranda warnings?
No. A police officer decided to interrogate her using a method he had been taught: to question the suspect, obtain a confession, then give Miranda warnings and repeat the questioning until the confession was obtained again.
In Missouri v. Seibert (2004), did the Court allow the police to use the incriminating statements Seibert made after the Miranda warnings?
In the district courts, the court did not allow the first statements but did allow the second, Post-miranda statements. The supreme court, however, in a decision with no majority, a four-justice plurality found that the post-Miranda confession is only admissible - even if the two-stage interview was unintentional, as it was in Elstad - if the Miranda warning and accompanying break are sufficient to give the suspect the reasonable belief that she has the right not to speak with the police.
In Powell v. Alabama (1932), of what were the “Scottsboro Boys” accused?
Raping young white women
In Powell v. Alabama (1932), who was appointed as their lawyer? How much preparation for the case was done by the lawyer(s)?
All of the lawyers in town were appointed to defend the men. None showed up and a lawyer from Tenn had to take over the case. An extension was not granted for the defense and the boys were sentenced to death.
In Powell v. Alabama (1932), according to the Supreme Court’s decision, was the Scottsboro Boys’ right to counsel violated in this case?
Yes
In Powell v. Alabama (1932), after this case, under what conditions do states have to provide lawyers for indigent defendants?
In any case of capital offense
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), what was Clarence Gideon accused (and convicted) of?
Breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), on what basis did he challenge his conviction?
The state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violated his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), did the Supreme Court rule in favor Gideon?
n a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."
How severe a penalty must an accused criminal face in order to be given a lawyer at government expense?
The state must provide for the defense of any indignant defendant.
Has the Supreme Court placed any limit on how long a government can wait before putting an accused criminal on trial for the crime?
No
How long does the Speedy Trial Act give the government to begin a trial after arrest?
he act requires federal authorities to file an information or indictment within thirty days of a defendant's arrest. A prosecutor who knows that an accused is incarcerated at the time of indictment must take immediate steps to initiate prosecution. If a defendant enters a plea of not guilty, trial must commence within seventy days from the filing of the information or indictment, or seventy days from the accused's first appearance in court, whichever is later.
In the context of choosing jurors, what is the difference between challenges for cause and peremptory challenges?
A challenge for cause is exercised when the examination of a juror discloses some disqualification rendering him incompetent to try the accused. A peremptory challenge is one allowed by law without assigning any reason, nor can any reason be required. This right can be exercised according to the judgment, will or caprice of the party entitled thereto.
In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), of what crime was Batson accused?
Burglary and receipt of stolen goods
In Batson v. Kentucky (1986),
Black
In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), were there any black members in the jury pool from which his jurors were picked? Were any black people selected for the jury? Why not?
The defense peremptorily challenged nine potential jurors and the prosecutor, Joe Gutmann, peremptorily challenged six, including all four black persons, and a jury composed only of white persons was selected.
In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), did the Court decide that Batson had a right to have some black members on the jury for his trial?
Relying heavily on precedents set in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) and Swain v. Alabama (1965), Justice Powell held that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large because it "undermines public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." Without identifying a "neutral" reason why the four blacks should have been excluded from the jury, the prosecutor's actions were in violation of the Constitution.
In Solem v. Helm (1982), does a sentence of life in prison without parole for several non-violent offenses violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause?
Yes. Since all of Helm's prior offenses, including his current check-writing conviction, had been "relatively minor" and were not crimes against people, Justice Powell held that Helm had "received the penultimate sentence (South Dakota did not have the death penalty) for relatively minor criminal conduct." Powell concluded that Helm was treated more harshly than the state's most violent criminals.
In Harmelin v. Michigan (1990) does a sentence of life in prison without parole for a first-time cocaine possession violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause ?
No. The Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, held that since the Eighth Amendment does not contain a proportionality guarantee, the determination of whether a punishment is "cruel and unusual" is not made with reference to the particular offense. Moreover, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause protects against unusual methods of punishment, not necessarily cruel ones. As such, while Harmelin's life sentence may have been cruel, it was not constitutionally unusual or unprecedented.
In Ewing v. California (2002), does a sentence of 25 years to life for shoplifting three golf clubs, when that is the third crime for which the person has been convicted, violate the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause?
No. In a 5-4 plurality decision authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court, relying heavily on its decision in Rummel v. Estelle (1980), concluded that Ewing's long history of legal offenses justified his conviction. In Rummel, the Court had ruled that a sentence of life with the possibility of parole was valid for three convictions of fraud, check forgery, and theft. In that case, the Court gave great deference to legislatures in mandating sentences for repeat offenders. Justice O'Connor writes that, as in Rummel, Ewing's conviction reflects "rational legislative judgment" and "is justified by the State's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons."
How do the “due process” clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments suggest that the death penalty is not necessarily unconstitutional?
"The state may not deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of the law"
What was the effect of the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia?
The Court's decision forced states and the national legislature to rethink their statutes for capital offenses to assure that the death penalty would not be administered in a capricious or discriminatory manner.
What is a “bifurcated trial?”
A bifurcated trial is one judicial proceeding that is divided into two stages in which different issues are addressed separately by the court.
What are mitigating factors?
Mitigating Factors are any evidence presented regarding the defendant's character or the circumstances of the crime, which would cause a juror to vote for a lesser sentence.
What are aggravating factors?
Aggravating Factors are any relevant circumstances, supported by the evidence presented during the trial, that makes the harshest penalty appropriate, in the judgment of the jurors.
In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), according to the judgment of the Court in this case, does the death penalty invariably violate the Constitution?
No
In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), How had state legislatures responded to the Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia?
By providing the judicious and careful use of the death penalty by requiring a bifurcated proceeding where the trial and sentencing are conducted separately, specific jury findings as to the severity of the crime and the nature of the defendant, and a comparison of each capital sentence's circumstances with other similar cases.
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), of what crime was Atkins accused?
Abduction, armed robbery, and capital murder
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), why did Atkins claim he should not be executed?
The defense relied on one witness, a forensic psychologist, who testified that Atkins was mildly mentally retarded
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), at the time of the Atkins case, was the trend among state legislators toward allowing or not allowing the execution of mentally retarded people?
The Court reasoned that a significant number of States have concluded that death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal.
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), what are the two purposes of the death penalty, according to the Court’s opinion?
Retribution and deterrence of capital crimes
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), did the Court allow Virginia to execute Atkins?
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
According to the Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons (2005), how old must a person be to be executed?
18
According to Kennedy v. Louisiana (2007), can a state impose the death penalty for the rape of a child, even if the crime did not include murder or attempted murder?
No. In a 5-4 decision the Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars states from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the child's death. Applying the death penalty in such a case would be an exercise of "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of a national consensus on the issue.
What sort of discrimination is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?
No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
What question do the justices ask when applying the rational basis test?
Justices ask "Is the law a reasonable way of achieving a legitimate government goal?"
When using the rational basis test, does the Court usually uphold or overturn the government’s action?
Usually upholds the law
Which party bears the burden of proof under the rational basis test, the party challenging the state action or the party defending state action?
The party challenging the state action
What kinds of laws are evaluated using the “rational basis” test?
In modern constitutional law, the rational basis test is applied to constitutional challenges of both federal law and state law (via the Fourteenth Amendment). This test also applies to both legislative and executive action whether those actions be of a substantive or procedural nature.
What must be true for a law to be valid under the strict scrutiny test?
For a law to be upheld, it must advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means available
When using the strict scrutiny test, is the Court more likely to uphold or overturn the government’s action?
Overturn the governmental action
Which party bears the burden of proof under the strict scrutiny test, the party challenging the state action or the party defending state action?
The party defending the state action
What kinds of laws are evaluated using the “strict scrutiny” test?
Those involving suspect classes
What groups are given “suspect class” status?
The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.
The group is a "discrete" or "insular" minority.
They possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless to protect themselves via the political process.
What kinds of laws are evaluated under the “intermediate scrutiny” standard?
Usually laws against women
What must be true for a law to be valid under the “intermediate scrutiny” test?
For a law to be upheld, it must be substantially related to achieving an important state interest
Can state or national governments prohibit irrational discrimination by private parties?
If legislation is passed in those states that prohibit irrational discrimination, then yes.
Does irrational discrimination by private parties violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. It only applies to governmental discrimination.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination that is based on any of several characteristics. What characteristics are covered?
It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S. It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1986), what did the Louisiana law challenged in this case require?
The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy--who was seven-eighths Caucasian--took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1986), did the Court uphold or overturn this law?
The court upheld the law, instituting separate but equal
In Sweatt v. Painter (1950), what did H. M. Sweatt want?
Herman Marion Sweatt, a black man, applied for admission to the University of Texas Law School. State law restricted access to the university to whites, and Sweatt's application was automatically rejected because of his race. When Sweatt asked the state courts to order his admission, the university attempted to provide separate but equal facilities for black law students.
In Sweatt v. Painter (1950), what did the state of Texas provide?
They started building a really poor facility
In Sweatt v. Painter (1950), in what ways did the opportunity that Texas offered Mr. Sweatt fall short of full equality?
The Court found that the "law school for Negroes," which was to have opened in 1947, would have been grossly unequal to the University of Texas Law School. The Court argued that the separate school would be inferior in a number of areas, including faculty, course variety, library facilities, legal writing opportunities, and overall prestige. The Court also found that the mere separation from the majority of law students harmed students' abilities to compete in the legal arena.
In Sweatt v. Painter (1950), did the Supreme Court rule that Texas’ policy violated the equal protection clause?
Yes
In Brown v. BOE (1954), did the Topeka School District’s policies allow Linda Brown to go to her neighborhood school?
No
In Brown v. BOE (1954), how, according to Warren’s opinion for the Court, had public education changed since the adoption of the 14th Amendment?
Justice Warren states: " [Post Civil War] education of white children was largely in the hands of private groups. Education of Negroes was almost nonexistent, and practically all of the race were illiterate. In fact, any education of Negroes was forbidden by law in some states. Today, in contrast, many Negroes have achieved outstanding success in the arts and sciences, as well as in the business and professional world. It is true that public school education at the time of the Amendment had advanced further in the North, but the effect of the Amendment on Northern States was generally ignored in the congressional debates. Even in the North, the conditions of public education did not approximate those existing today. The curriculum was usually rudimentary; ungraded schools were common in rural areas; the school term was but three months a year in many states, and compulsory school attendance was virtually unknown. As a consequence, it is not surprising that there should be so little in the history of the Fourteenth Amendment relating to its intended effect on public education."
In Brown v. BOE (1954), according to Warren’s opinion, are there tangible differences between the schools for white students and those for the black students involved in this case?
Yes, such as facilities and books used being unequal.
In Brown v. BOE (1954), what, according to Warren’s opinion, are the consequences of separating black schoolchildren from white schoolchildren?
Lack of self-esteem in black children along with worse education
In Brown v. BOE (1954), why does Warren reject the “separate but equal” doctrine?
The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.
In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson Co. Board of Ed. (2007), what goals were the school districts trying to accomplish with their race-conscious student assignment plans?
Racial diversity in oversubscribed schools.
In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson Co. Board of Ed. (2007), did the Court uphold or overturn these student assignment plans?
Overturned the cases
What attitude toward women was reflected in the Supreme Court’s rulings in Bradwell v. Illinois, Minor v. Happersett and Goesaert v. Cleary?
That they are not a suspect class
In Reed v. Reed (1971), what provision of Idaho law was challenged in this case?
The Idaho Probate Code specified that "males must be preferred to females" in appointing administrators of estates.
In Reed v. Reed (1971), what was the purpose of the Idaho law being challenged, according to the Idaho Supreme Court?
To streamline proceedings and for easier record keeping.
In Reed v. Reed (1971), does the Court uphold or overturn the Idaho law?
In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the law's dissimilar treatment of men and women was unconstitutional. The Court argued that "[t]o give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other, merely to accomplish the elimination of hearings on the merits, is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . .[T]he choice in this context may not lawfully be mandated solely on the basis of sex."
In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), what policy by the Air Force was challenged in this case?
Sharron Frontiero, a lieutenant in the United States Air Force, sought a dependent's allowance for her husband. Federal law provided that the wives of members of the military automatically became dependents; husbands of female members of the military, however, were not accepted as dependents unless they were dependent on their wives for over one-half of their support.
In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), what level of scrutiny did the Court use to examine this policy?
Strict scrutiny, but this did not continue forward. Intermediate scrutiny would later be used.
In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), did the Court uphold or overturn the Air Force Policy?
The Court held that the statute in question clearly commanded "dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated," violating the Due Process Clause. Applying a strict standard of review to the sex-based classification, the Court found that the government's interest in administrative convenience could not justify discriminatory practices. The Court held that statutes that drew lines between the sexes on those grounds alone necessarily involved "the 'very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution.'"
In Frontiero v. Richardson (1973), what reasons did the Court give for using this level of scrutiny?
[T]he sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to society. As a result, statutory distinctions between the sexes often have the effect of invidiously relegating the entire class of females to inferior legal status without regard to the actual capabilities of its individual members.
In Craig v. Boren (1976), what did the Oklahoma law challenged in this case say about the rights of men and women to buy 3.2 beer?
An Oklahoma law prohibited the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21 and to females under the age of 18. Curtis Craig, a male then between the ages of 18 and 21, and a licensed vendor challenged the law as discriminatory
In Craig v. Boren (1976), what was the goal of this law, according to the state of Oklahoma?
The state argued that women were more responsible than men and would not drive drunk.
In Craig v. Boren (1976), did the Court find that the goal of this statute was important state interest?
No
In Craig v. Boren (1976), did the Court uphold or overturn Oklahoma’s law?
Overturned the law
In United States v. Virginia (1996), what college was the focus of this case?
Virginia Military Institute
In United States v. Virginia (1996), what arguments did Virginia make for maintaining this college for males only?
It claimed that single-sex education contributes to educational diversity
In United States v. Virginia (1996), what had the state of Virginia done to provide equal educational opportunities for women?
Created a women's only military school.
In United States v. Virginia (1996), did the Court find that Virginia’s solution satisfied the Equal Protection Act?
The court found it did not satisfy the Equal Protection Act
In United States v. Virginia (1996), what level of scrutiny did the Court use to evaluate whether this solution satisfied the equal protection clause?
Intermediate Scrutiny
In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), what element of the Selective Service Act was challenged in this case?
That women didn't have to register for the draft
In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), did the Court uphold or overturn the challenged section of the Selective Service Act?
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that Congress's decision to exempt women from registration "was not the 'accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about females'" and did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court found that men and women, because of combat restrictions on women, were not "similarly situated" for the purposes of draft registration. The Court also upheld Congress's judgment that the administrative and military problems that would be created by drafting women for noncombat roles were sufficient to justify the Military Selective Service Act.
In Romer v. Evans (1996), what was the effect of Colorado’s Amendment 2?
Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."
In Romer v. Evans (1996), how did this amendment hurt gays, lesbians and bisexuals?
Forbids the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation
In Romer v. Evans (1996), how did Colorado defend Amendment 2? What did Colorado say the effects of the Amendment were? What did Colorado say the goals of the amendment were?
The state argued that Amendment 2 merely blocked gay people from receiving "special rights"
In Romer v. Evans (1996), what problems did the Court find with Amendment 2? What was the goal of the amendment, according to the Court?
Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that oftentimes a law will be sustained under the equal protection clause, even if it seems to disadvantage a specific group, so long as it can be shown to "advance a legitimate government interest." Amendment 2, by depriving persons of equal protection under the law due to their sexual orientation failed to advance such a legitimate interest. Justice Kennedy concluded: "If the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."
In Romer v. Evans (1996), did the court uphold or overturn the amendment?
Overturned the amendment
In San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), why did the Edgewood school district argue that Texas’ system of funding schools discriminated against them?
It underprivileged such students because their schools lacked the vast property tax base that other districts utilized. The reliance on assessable property, SAISD claimed, caused severe inter-district disparities in per-pupil expenditures.
In San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), are the poor a suspect class?
No
In San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), what level of scrutiny did the Court apply in this case?
The rational basis test
In San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez (1973), did the Supreme Court overturn Texas’ system of funding schools?
No
Do laws that discriminate against aliens (i.e. non-citizens) deserve strict scrutiny?
No. They deserve intermediate scrutiny
In Plyler v. Doe (1982), what policy was the state of Texas trying to enforce in this case?
A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens.
In Plyler v. Doe (1982), why does Brennan’s majority opinion reject Texas’s policy?
he Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), how did the University of Michigan factor race into its undergraduate admissions policy?
he Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body."
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), was the University of Michigan’s law school admissions policy upheld or overturned? Why?
In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."
What are affirmative action programs, according to the text?
Programs that that positive steps seeking equal distribution of rewards among different races and/or sexes.
Have the number of executions in the nation increased or decreased since the 1970s?
Increased
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), according to the Court’s opinion in this case, what provides the best evidence of contemporary values regarding the death penalty?
The work product of legislatures and sentencing jury determinations–ought to be the sole indicator
In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), did the undergrad policy get upheld or overturned?
Overturned