POLS 3600 Exam 2 Court Cases

Weeks v United States

§  Allowed us to recognize the exclusionary rule in federal criminal cases

Mapp v Ohio

Applied the Exclusionary Rule at the state level

Boykin v Alabama

§  Supreme Court tells us that the Defendant must state before a judge that the plea they are accepting is voluntary

§  Plea Hearing

North Carolina v Alford

§  Defendants are allowed to enter guilty pleas for a lesser sentence while still maintaining their innocence (Alford Plea/No-contest Plea)

§  Defendant is allowed to make a statement of innocence

Santobello v New York

§  Prosecutors must keep their promise regarding terms that are struck for a plea deal (cannot change agreed upon sentence)

Ricketts v Adamson

§  Defendants have to uphold the terms of the plea agreement

Bordenkircher v Hayes

· NO VIOLATION of Due Process Rights

·Threatening a stiffer sentence is permissible and part of “any legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas”

Batson v Kentucky

§  Opposition can challenge the strike which forces lawyer to provide a reasons (Batson Challenge to a Peremptory Strike)

§  Not very successful

Furman v Georgia

§  The death penalty, as it was being administered at the time, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8^th amendment

Gregg v Georgia

§  The death penalty itself is not cruel and unusual; BUT using it as a mandatory sentence is considered cruel and unusual

§  Refines the way we use the death penalty to prevent moral objections to the death penalty resulting in wrongful acquittals

·        Two phases of trial are necessary

·        Phase 1: innocence or guilty

·        Phase 2: is the death penalty the appropriate sentence given circumstances

Stanford v Kentucky

§  It is not unconstitutional to execute people for crimes that are age 16 or older at the time of the crime

Penry v Lynaugh

§  It is constitutional to execute someone for a crime despite the fact that they are intellectually or mentally handicapped

Atkins v Virginia

§  Defendants with an IQ less than 70 cannot be executed for their crime

§  Overturns Penry

Roper v Simmons

§  You cannot execute offenders who are under the age of 18 at the time of the crime being committed

§  Overturns Stanford

Uttecht v Brown

§  Death-qualified jury

§  If the death penalty is on the table as a punishment, lawyers can demand that they have a jury that is willing to hand out the death penalty in the second half of the case(sentencing)

US v Booker

o   Changes the way federal judges are able to use sentencing guidelines

o   Prior to Booker, judges were required to use the guidelines

o   In Booker the Supreme Court ruled having mandatory sentencing guidelines for all federal crimes is unconstitutional and violates due process

o   Today guidelines are used at judge’s discretion, but mandatory sentencing still exists (ex: 3 strikes laws)

Cooper v Pate

o   Tells states they have to make sure the rights of prisoners are protected under 1871 Civil Rights Act

Hudson v Palmer

o   Prison officials can search cells and confiscate materials with no notice/reason

Samson v California

police officers may conduct a warrantless, suspicionless search of a parolee, provided the search is not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing