warren court notes

Mapp v. Ohio

Was convinced of possessing obscene material after illegal police search.

Appealed her conviction based on freedom of expression.

Illegal Police Search

Mapp v. Ohio

Police were able to find enough evident to arrest map even though they didn’t have a warrant.

Action of law enforcement violated her 1^st and 4^th amendment.

Mapp v. Ohio

Strengthened the 4^th amendment and overall protection of unreasonable searches and seizures

Mapp v. Ohio

Supreme Court ruled in the favor of Mapp and said the evidence was gained unlawfully and couldn’t be used against her.

Baker v. Carr

Mayor of Nashville and resident filed against Joe C Car

Believed they were robbed of the protection if the 14^th amendment.

Requested and election and alternative

Baker v. Carr

Baker said Tennessee had unfairly appointed representatives.

Car says the courts have no jurisdiction over this.

Baker v. Carr

Court dismissed the case claiming the lack of authority un legislative case.

Supreme Court overturned the ruling in Colegrove v. green and said it violated the 14^th amendment.

Baker v. Carr

Paved the way for cases that protected voting rights.

Reminded constitution promises equal and that every vote is important and fix imbalance.

Escobedo v. Illinois

Period in between time of arrest and interrogation was the crucial time for defendant to consult with a counselor to know their rights

Escobedo v. Illinois

Police arrested Danny Escobedo as a suspect of murder.

Police broke 6^th amendment.

Refusal of a lawyer didn’t allow the confession to be used against him.

Key issue was whether his rights were violated

Escobedo v. Illinois

The court ruled his rights were violated because he wasn’t given to talk to a council/lawyer

Escobedo v. Illinois

Reinforced the rights of suspects to a counsel during a police interrogation and to get an attorney’s advice.

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda was arrested over kidnapping and rape charges.

He later confessed but he was never given his rights against self-incrimination

Violated 5^th and 6^th amendment

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda said the police officers violated the 5th amendment and his confession was forced by the interrogator.

Precession said the confession was voluntary and the police followed standard procedure

Miranda v. Arizona

The court ruled the arrested individual should be informed of their rights.

Miranda v. Arizona

Made police officers now have always read the “Miranda Rights” when someone is being arrested.

Tinker v. Des Moines

Students decided to wear armbands to protests the Vietnam War. Students were sent home and told they can only return without armbands. The district court dismissed the complaints from parents, so a final appeal was sent to the supreme court.

Tinker v. Des Moines

Students claimed armbands constitute freedom of speech and were protected by the 1^st amendment. The schools said teachers and students don't have absolute freedom of speech in schools.

Tinker v. Des Moines

Court ruled in favor of protecting the first amendment rights of the schools and allowed wearing of armbands

Tinker v. Des Moines

Established public schools first amendment rights and made it illegal for school to restrict speech unless in interfered with instruction.

Engel v. Vitale

Every morning students could pray if chosen.

This concerned parents.

Violated the establishment clause

Engel v. Vitale

Justice Douglas argued school sponsored prayer violated the establishment clause.

Justice Stewart argued separation of church and state his should only be allowed in state sponsored churches because the prayer was optional it removed constitutional issue

Engel v. Vitale

Court ruled it was unconstitutional and that it violated the separation of religion and state

Engel v. Vitale

Created a divide between religion and state.

Used to limit state enforced prayer in public school.

Resulted in massive public backlash against the supreme court

Yates v. United States

14 members of the communist party were convicted on the grounds of the Smith Act. Smith's act outlaws planning to overthrow the gov. They appealed claiming the first amendment.

Yates v. United States

Prosecutions claimed it was illegal since they claimed to overthrow the gov.

They claimed it was violating their first amendment. They said it was fine if they posed no threat.

Yates v. United States

Court overturned the convictions

Yates v. United States

Reiterates that speech is protected by the 1^st and freedom of speech is only protected until it poses a threat to others

Gideon v. Wainwright

•The unanimous decision was written by Justice Hugo Black

•Gideon appeared in court without an attorney and then eventually represented himself.

•9-0 ruling that the states are required to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with a felony. 

Gideon v. Wainwright

1.Are states required, under the federal Constitution, to provide a person charged with a non-capital felony with counsel assistance if they can’t afford an attorney?

2.Is the state required to give a felon an attorney if they cannot afford one alone?

Gideon v. Wainwright

•Gideon’s position

•The judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated Gideon’s constitutional rights.

•He also argued that Florida was violating the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

•whether states are required under federal constitution to provide a person charged with a non-capital with the assistance of counsel.

•Gideon said he was entitled to counsel assistance

•he believed the Sixth Amendment (right to a speedy public trial) should extend to that.

Gideon v. Wainwright

•The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon’s argument

•stated that the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants was a right for all citizens

•Following Gideon’s previous case, he was given another free trial with an appointed lawyer

•He ended up being acquitted of the original charges.

Gideon v. Wainwright

1.The court case is important to America today because it guarantees the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in both federal AND state courts.

2.Without this case, people who are wrongfully accused of non-capital felonies wouldn’t be able to defend themselves.