Robinson V. California Case Study

711 Words 3 Pages
Question 1
A. 370 U.S. 660: Robinson v. California (No. 554) Argued: April 17, 1962- Decided: June 25, 1962
The case involved Robinson and the state of California. He had violated Californian statute that prohibited addiction to narcotics (Uscourtsgov, 2018). The statute termed it a misdemeanor punishable by any person arrested with addiction to drugs, and, sustained the petitioner’s imprisonment thereunder the Californian courts. The constitutional amendments that were under scrutiny, in this case, were Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments Pp. 370 U. S. 660-668 on drug addiction.
B. 393 U.S. 483 (89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718) William Joe Johnson, Petitioner, v. Harry S. Avery, Commissioner of Correction, et al. No. 40. Argued Nov. 14, 1968 - Decided
…show more content…
The case posed questions regarding the conduct of an inmate who participated in assisting fellow prisoners in planning the appeals for a writ of habeas corpus and any other legal papers. The amendment in scrutiny was the 28 U.S.C ~ 2242 that violates such prisoner actions.
C. 384 US 436 (1966) Miranda v. Arizona Argued 2/28/66; 3/1/66; 3/2/66 Decided Jun 13, 1966
On March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for the allegations of rape and kidnapping. The investigators found a written confession admitting the offense. However, the police officers who arrested Miranda did not advise him to have an attorney during the interrogation. Even though the court charged Miranda for the crimes, the appeal in the Supreme Court of Arizona found no violation of his constitutional rights since he failed to request counsel. The amendment in check was the Fifth Amendment.
D. 419 U.S. 565 Goss v. Lopez Argued: October 16, 1974 Decided: January 22,
…show more content…
The prosecutor handling the case required audio tapes recorded by Nixon in the office but Nixon termed the move as “executive privilege” (Uscourtsgov, 2018). On the other hand, many people questioned if it was the president’s right to protect crucial information using the “executive privilege” confidentiality power that is immune from judicial abilities (Uscourtsgov, 2018). The law in scrutiny was Article II of the United States constitutional privilege.
F. 367 U.S. 643 Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Argued: March 29, 1961 Decided: June 19, 1961
The suit involves Cleveland police officers who pursued the bombing suspect and evidence at the petitioner Miss Mapp’s house (Uscourtsgov, 2018). After having failed in the previous attempt to enter the house, the officers forcibly go in using a purported search warrant and searched the home in which crude materials were found. The rule of law in scrutiny was the violation of the American Constitution as explained in the Fourth Amendment. The law termed all evidence collected in violation of this amendment to be unacceptable and irrelevant in the court proceedings.

Related Documents