Comm Law Midterm Set

What is law?

 creation and enforcement of duties

What are Duties?

act/course of action required by social customs

Ex: duty of reasonable care → if you don’t do it then its negligence and you can’t put others at risk

What are obligations?

laws that make certain agreements binding

EX: For example, if someone was asked to bring aclohol to a party and did not, there is little recourse. However, if someone had been given $500 to purchase alcohol for a party and did not, they have violated their obligation, and recourse is available.

What are constitutional rights?

federal and state rights guaranteed by constitution

What are statutory rights?

rights created by bills by Congress or state legislatures

What is the purpose of law?

 personal protection, set threshold for risk, consequences, level playing field with standards, stability, consistency

What is the civil law system?

• Legislatures have power

• Majority have this; a system of codes(statutes), written laws, rigid

• Judges apply these

What is the common law system?

• USA has this

• Based on codes but also judge made laws

• Judges interpretation becomes law

• empowers judges to make law

What are some advantages of the common law system?

• Flexibility and Adaptibility

  • Stare decisis: when a court makes a decision, they have to look at similar decisions made in past and apply

• Predictability

• Critical to Business

• Nuance and fact sensitivity

  • Law is not bound by code

  • Built in checks on power: juries; spread power of decisions; judges; juries and legislation also have power

• Efficiency in gap filling

• Transparency

  • Opinions of judges is written down through reasoning

What is criminal law?

• Rules that protect our society as a whole by establishing minimum standards of acceptable behavior

• Establishes punishment for those who to fail to meet these standards: consequences

• All criminal actions are bought by government (state government)

  • Ex: if someone hits you, then government has to be involved

• States have their own criminal law

What is civil law and purpose

** purpose of civil law to resolve disputes and provide remedies

** Courts of law and equity for all civil cases

• Civil Victim

  • Governs private relationships and agreements between individuals and organizations

  • Ex: family law, insurance stuff

• Civil Enforcement (administrative)

  • What does administrative law mean?

    • Every state and federal government have administrative agencies which are set up by legislatures and have roles in specific areas

    • The laws agencies make are called regulations

History of law

• First was king’s law(court of law) and it was extremely rigid

  • But also not fair so then the courts of equity were created

• Courts of Equity

  • Laws based on what’s fair; flexible; up to judge’s discretion

  • Process: you petition to king and then if king deemed it worthy then it went to chancellor and then if chancellor thinks it should change then award of equity given

What is an injuction?

court order to do something or refrain from doing something

What is Court of Law?

extremely rigid; remedy provided: money (money judgements at law, damages);

• Procedure: juries; decision maker is judge

• If a man was promised $50,000 to paint a house but became injured halfway and could not finish the job, the Court of Law would rule the man had breached his contract and thus was owed nothing.

• Enforcement: Money judgements at law is placed against a defendant's property.

• Remedies: Money

What is Court of Equity/Chancery Court?

• Grounded in concepts of fairness;

• remedy provided: more than money (injunction, specific performance, promissory estoppel);

• rules are flexible: if a man was promised $50,000 to paint a house but became injured halfway and could not finish the job, the Chancery Court would view him not being paid as an "unjust enrichment" on the behalf of the homeowner. The man would eb owed $25,000 for finishing half the job.

• Enforcement: Court has mroe power on how to collect; they can impose fines and even hold a person in contempt of court

What is unjust enrichment?

• when one party unfairly benefits at another person's expense without paying for it or providing fair compensation

What are enforcement powers?

• You sue someone because they crashed into you 

• Money judgement at law

• No debtors prison

• attach/take their personal and real property

  • Personal property is moveable

  • Real property refers to land and things attached to the land

• Injunction

  • Court can order this

What does contempt of court mean?

The court orders a person to clean up their yard within the next 30 days. For every day the yard is not cleaned, the person is fined $100. If the yard is still not cleaned by the end of the 30 days, the person is held in contempt of court and is placed in jail.

How do you determine whether Court of Equity or Court of Law?

In every state except Deleware, the Chancery Court and Court of Law are combined into one court. They exist in the same building with only one decision-maker. The main way to determine which is which is to look at what remedy is being asked for. Equity only applies for civil cases. Criminal cases must follow the statutes.

What is constitutional law?

• Supreme law of land

• 27 amendments

• Ambiguous language

What is federalism?

1. Separates state and federal government and both parties have power

2. Constitution specifically grants limited enumerated powers to federal government(congress, executive branch, judiciary) and any rights no given to federal government specifically then goes to state

What is the system of checks and balances?

1.  branches can check on each other; Prevent one branch from becoming too powerful and dominating the others

   1. Congress(Legislative) 

   2. Judiciary

   3. Executive

What is judicial review

Not found in the Constitution, derived form the supremacy clause

• Supremacy Clause: Article VI, Clause 2 states “This constitution and the laws of the US shall be the supreme law of the land

  1. Goes on to say that judges in every state shall be bound → state judges have power of judicial review over state laws

What was Marbury v Madison and what did it do?

Marbury sued for a writ of mandamus (a court order ordering an elected official to do their job) under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Supreme Court had the power to issue such a writ. Chief Justice Marshall agreed that Marbury was owed damages for being denied his position; however, he disagreed that the Supreme Court could constitutionally issue such a writ.

• No where in constitution does it say who gets power of judicial review over federal

• This case determined supreme court has final authority to interpret constitution

What is Judicial Restraint?

1. Idea that judges should not use their power to make policy or to second guess elected official

2. Courts defer to congress and stand legislatures and executive branch unless their actions clearly violate constitution

What are the 2 basic theories of constitutional interpretation?

strict constructionism and judicial acitvism

What is Strict constructionism/strict interpretation?

1. rely heavily on original sources, the text itself→ “What does it say?”

2. Founder’s intentions

3. History and traditions

4. Ex: Can short term guest get 4th amendment rights?

5. Scalia is strict constructionist so he said this: “The right of people to be secure in their houses, persons, papers, and effects against unreasonable “search and seizure”” → since it says their houses it only applies to homeowner

What is judicial activist?

1. Believe in a living constitution because they believe the founders intentionally wrote the constitution in ambiguous terms to be revised and society changed and needs arise

2. Ex: Roe v wade overturned meant switch from living constitution to strict interpretation 

   1. Justification for the overturning was constitution didn’t say anything about abortion and abortion is not rooted in history and tradition of america

3. Living Constitutionalists rely on the 19th amendment 

   1. Enumeration in constitution of certain rights should not be created or denied to the people

   2. Basically laws not in constitution, belongs to people and state

What is the commerce clause?

• 16 words; only 8 are significant: Congress may regulate commerce among the several states

What happened in Gibbons v Ogden(1824)

• NY law gave steamboat licenses and Ogden says to Gibbons who has a ferryboat business and transports people from NJ to NY that he can’t operate in those waters bc it’s NY

• Gibbons brings up Interstate Commerce

  • Purpose of commerce clause was to encourage trade so NY law deemed unconstitutional and this led to intrastate commerce

What happened in NLRB v Jones Laughlin Steel Co (1937)?

• Some workers in steel company joined union and company fired the employees

• NLRB which is the federal agency for labor sued the company because it was in violation of commerce clause since steel was traded 

• Court applied the “Substantial Effects Test”

  • Does the action significantly affect commerce?

• Court said yes and this decision expanded the commerce clause

What is the substantial effects test?

• Does the action significantly affect commerce?

What happened in Wickard v. Filburn(1942)

• Fed law that limited annual wheat production

• Filburn thought that he could keep producing because he wasn’t gonna sell the wheat and use it for personal reasons

• Fed govt said you can’t do that

• Filburn went to court

• Court applied the substantial effects test and aggregate test

  • Aggregate test is basically looking at the action on a wider scale

  • What if every farmer grew their own wheat? Then it would be damaging commerce

  • This again expanded the commerce clause

What is the aggregate test?

• is basically looking at the action on a wider scale

What happened in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v US(1964)

• Could Congress use their powers under the commerce clause to ban racial discrimination in public accommodations?

• This was about whether hotels can discriminate of if congress can block it

• Court says discrimination blocks travel and commerce so they said it was unconstitutional

What happened in US v Lopez(1995)

• Congress passed federal gun free school zones Act

• High school student bought gun and got arrested and argued Congress didn’t have power to pass this law

• Congress said it’s under CC because people need to get to school and get education and they won’t go to unsafe places because it weakens education which then affects economy then interstate commerce

• The Supreme Court said this was a stretch and that possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity. It does not have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.

What happened in Gonzalez v Raich(2005)

• California legalized marijuana but federal law banned it

• Could congress regulate medical marijuana?

• Mr Gonzalez was growing it and using and got arrested and said it’s not economic activity so congress can’t control it under CC

• Court said remember aggregate test; if so many people grow marijuana and that would significantly affect economic activity

• So you can’t grow/use it

• Federal law outlaws marijuana 

• When Obama was president and during the recession states weren’t able to do payroll taxes

• So he said let’s make pot legal but tax it heavily

• Obama told attorney general to not enforce the law so kinda just turning a blind eye to it

What is the full faith in credit clause?

Sec 1: Requires states to honor each other’s laws and court decisions

1. Ex: how you drive in US - state license gets you to drive in other states

What is the privileges and immunities clause?

1. When non resident visits a state, they have same rights and unlike full faith and credit it’s not an absolute right

   1. You only have to do this if there’s a fundamental right

2. Ex: New Hampshire had a law that only lets its residents get bar exam but that got struck down

What is the first amendment?

Amendment 1: Freedom of Discretion/Religion/Speech/Assembly/to protest/press

• Overlaps a lot

• Freedom of religion; explicitly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

• 2 clauses : Establishment and Free exercise

What is the establishment clause and what was phase 1?

• Phase 1: Early History(Late 1800s to early 1900s)

  • A strong separation between government and religion → a wall of separation

  • Ex: during this period prayer at classroom or graduations as well as bible readings in school was unconstitutional

  • Supreme Court was scared of spread of religion in schools because school is mandatory and kids are a captive and impressionable audience and worried about coercion

  • However this put a cramp on being able to freely practice religion which led to phase 2

Phase 2 of establishment clause

• 1940s-1970s

  • Court started to lean more towards neutrality and equal access

  • Changed focus from concerns about endorsement of religion to upholding laws that involve individual choice and neutrality

What was phase 3 and the example case(Kennedy v Bremerton)?

• Early 2000s- freedom of expression was gaining traction over freedom of establishment

• In 2022, Kennedy vs Bremberton in Texas

  • Landmark decision where Joseph Kennedy, a high school football coach in Bremerton, Washington, began a tradition of kneeling at the 50-yard line after games to offer a brief, personal prayer of thanks and soon students started joining him

  • School district said stop because he was a public employee and was praying on the field with his uniform on during a school sponsored game and then players joining him made it seem like coercion

  • Kennedy argued that it was his personal religious expression, didn’t force anyone to participate and religious expression shouldn’t be treated worse than non religious expression

  • Supreme Court said coach’s prayer was private religious expression not government speech therefore constitutional and was protected by first amendment

• In 2025, texas passed law requiring 10 commandments to be posted in any elementary and secondary schools in a conspicuous place

  • Precedent saying can't have commandments in schools but also you could have these near court grounds

  • This case is now otw to SC as District COurt said it was unconstitutional and then 5th circuit repealed that

What is the freedom of speech and exact wording?

• “Congress shall not make any law abridging the freedom of speech”

  • This is not an absolute protection

• Court recognizes different categories of speech which receive different levels of protection

  • Political speech has strongest protection

  • Fighting words has minimal protection

  • Symbolic speech has strong but not absolute protection

  • Student speech has conditional protections

• Conditional protection: levels of education(elementary schoolers don’t have as much protection because schools have power to discipline while college kids have more protection since they are adults)

What does time, place, and manner refer to in first amendment?

• Logistical regulations that are allowed

  • Case in 2011 Snyder vs Phelps

    • Church started protest at funeral of veterans to criticize government, military and homosexuality

    • Church got sued because of disruption and course said that’s fine because freedom of political speech which received very strong protections and is a matter of public concern

• Protests- Time, Place, Manner

  • The government can’t stop on subject matter but can regulate when, where, and how you do it(ex: noise limits, permit requirements, etc.)

  • Where you protest is for public safety and crowd control rules

  • Must be very narrowly drawn

  • In case in MA, there was a 30ft buffer near abortion clinics

  • Court struck down law because they said it was too much 

  • Again narrowly defined

What are fighting words referring to first amendment?

Fighting words are seen as face to face insults and speech likely to prove imminent/immediate harm or violence, direct verbal attacks rather than political ideas

• Supreme court narrowly defined what’s a fighting word and what’s not

What is symbolic speech and what were the findings from US v obrien and cohen v califorinia?

• Caveat in US v Obrien

  • Case in 1968 during Vietnam war and someone burned draft cards and congress changed law to say you can’t burn draft cards

  • Obrien said I can do this because of freedom of speech

  • Court said no because the law furthered an important/substantial interest

    • Interest was unrelated to suppressing expression

    • Restriction on speech was no greater than necessary

    • Government has authority to regulate such conduct

• Cohen v California

  • Had a jacked that said “Fuck the war” in court

  • Court said you can’t wear that because it’s indecent 

    • Supreme court said it’s constitutional because it’s not related to conduct

USSC Interpretation of Second Amendment

Milita or Right to arms: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, a right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What happened in US v Cruikshank(1875)

1. Dealt with Illinois state law where ownership of weapons was forbidden

2. Law was challenged under the second amendment

3. Supreme Court held that second amendment only applies to federal government

What was result of Presser v Illinois(1886)

1. Again held the second amendment only for federal government

What happened in US v Miller(1939)

1. In 1934, National Firearms Act

   1. Can’t transport weapons without permits or carry certain types of weapons

   2. Miller had a shotgun that was sawed off

2. Question was Does the second amendment protect the possession of sawed off shotgun?

   1. Said No: Purpose of second amendment was to render possible the effectiveness of state militia; __ must be interpreted and applied with that view

What happened in District of Columbia v Heller(2010)

1. In 2008, Court established individual right revolution

2. Scalia, kennedy, tomas, roberts, etc. said militia argument didn’t make sense

3. This case was around DC law that banned handguns and dc laws considered federal laws

4. Does the 2nd amendment protect individual’s right and own firearms unconnected to militia service?

   1. Yes, and not only that right to own arms is a fundamental right

   2. Fundamental rights - in there(right to marry): not only can federal government take it away but states can’t either

What happened in McDonald v Chicago?

1. Can a state ban handguns?

   1. First it was no but based on Heller, possession of a handgun in home for self defense is protected under 2nd amendment 

   2. This is called incorporation through the 14th amendment due process clause 

   3. But that doesn’t mean states can’t restrict(ex: states can put background checks)

What happened in US v Rahimi?(2024)

1. Case is about if 2nd amendment restrict the government ability to prohibit firearm possession with a domestic violence restraining order

2. Court said yes, because court was using the history and traditions set to determine if there were similar laws in the past

3. Federal law is constitutional because prior laws had always prohibited violent people from obtaining weapons

4. Court is showing us they’re more likely to put brakes when a person is violent and who poses a public threat to safety

What does the 5th amendment say?

 no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

What does 14th amendment say?

Nor shall any state deprive any person of life , liberty, or property without due process of law— this extends due process to state

What is due process?

fairness- cornerstone of system

• spell out fundamental rights guaranteed to individuals//; govt can’t take away without proper process

Procedural vs substantive due process

1. Procedural due process: Did the government follow the right process(was the process fair?)

• Ex: right to trial, right to attorney, right to appeal

2. Substantive: Is the government allowed to take your life, liberty, property at all?

   1. If it’s a fundamental right then answer is no

   2. It used to be that the right to abortion was substantive but not anymore

   3. What if the government wanted to take away the license? Well, yes they can bc license is not fundamental right, it’s a privilege 

What is the history and meaning of 4th amendment?

• Basic premise is that the government should leave individuals alone unless it can prove they are doing something wrong

• Historically demanded that law enforcement obtain a warrant by providing he or she has probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed

• A warrant is a court order allowing law enforcement to search and seize property and person

• When getting warrant, officer must swear on oath that probable cause is true

  • How is it due process: ensures that someone doesn’t just pick on you, Officer needs evidence/probable cause

What are today’s requirement in terms of warrants?

• A warrant must be specific: exact identification of premise they want to enter

• Who they want to watch and what they want to seize

Does 4th amendment say warrant is always required?

• 4th amendment doesn’t say warrant is always required

  • Consent searches

    • Voluntary consent by an individual - the government has burden of proving consent was given voluntarily - not as duress or coercion

    • Ex: roommate can allow to come to apartment and search common areas

    • Landlord cannot consent for you nor hotel room

In what situations does scope of consent differ?

withdraw, automible exceptions, exigent circumstances, earch incident leading to lawful arrest, plain view doctrine, protective sweep, inventory searches, stop and frisk

Why are there automobile exceptions to consent?

1. You have a lot fewer rights over car than home(bc car can be moved

What are exigent circumstances?

If we let the suspect go or didn’t go in or in cases of emergency

Can you search phone anytime?

No you need a separate warrant for phone

What is the plain view doctrine ? What happened in California v Citalo and Kylov v US?

1. Plain View Doctrine

   1. If police officer sees illegal stuff when you maybe open the door doe noise complaint they they can arrest

   2. California vs Citalo

      1. San Antonia police got anonymous tip that guy was growing weed in backyard 

      2. They went to go see but couldn’t so they flew a plane

      3. Guy was like that’s not plain view, but court said that was plain view

   3. Kylov v US(2001)

      1. Grew pot in greenhouse

      2. This time police got heat imagery devices and saw heat lamps

      3. Court said that was not plain view

   4. For Drones

      1. You have private right to air space

      2. 16 states require warrant before 

      3. 4 don’t allow and 3 wishy washy

      4. Drones and planes are considered different

What is a protective sweep?

1. When police makes sweep of area to make sure they’re safe

What happened in Terry v Ohio? What is the stop and frisk doctrine?

1. 3 men in bad part of cleveland and walked back and forth in front of jewelry store

2. Cop saw and said I need to pat down and ended up finding a non legal weapon

3. Terry said that was violation of 4th amendment

4. Court said search was okay because police can stop and frisk/pat down a person without a warrant or probable cause if they have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is committing or about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person might be armed and dangerous

5. Why?

   1. Court said not easy for police to do their job and they have and need to know what would be dangerous for them

   2. Reasonable suspicion required articulable facts nor just a human

Why can officer search without warrant at border?

1. Any routine search near the border do not need probable cayse to search you or cat because they need to ensure safety

What happened in US v Montoya de Hernandez?

1. Woman held for 16hrs because they thought she ingested cocaine and later she passed it and so arrested her

2. They were able to hold her because of reasonable suspicion

   1. No need for probable cause in routine border search involving personal intrusion. All that was needed was reasonable suspicion

What happened in US v Flores Montano?

1. Stopped vehicle and took his gas tank out because they found marijuanna hidden in the gas tank

2. USSC said this is a border search and it’s a car

   1. Now here there was no reasonable suspicion needed

   2. Reasonable needed when they physically intrude your body

What happened in Maryland v King(2013)

1. Guy was arrested for assault and he was swabbed. The DNA matched to unsolved rape cases

2. USSC said this is no different from photos, fingerprints, etc

3. Scalia dissented and said DNA holds lot of biological information

4. DNA Collection allowed but only for defendants who have been arrested before may have DNA swabbed and tested

What are some other situations or places officers can search without warrants?

1. School searches, drug testing, probation/parole searches, administrative searches

2. Abandoned Property

What is the Exclusionary Rule and which case created this rule?

• Previously used to be that if arrest was unconstitutional then you can still use the evidence

• Weeks v. U.S.

  • Created exclusionary rule: any evidence collected in an unconstitutional way can’t be used in court

  • this first onlt applied to federal court cases

What was result of Mapp v Ohio

states also adopting exclusionary rule

What is the Fruit of the Poisoned tree? Which case did this involve?

• In 1963 Wong v US:

  • Held that not only evidence that was obtained illegally but also any evidence discovered as a result of that illegal evidence could not be admitted at trial

  • Illegal police conduct → poisonous tree – illegal confession

  • But say you confessed that you buried the body and it was illegal confession, then that’s the fruits of the poisonous tree but evidence is still not permissible

What happened in Nick v Williams (1984)

• Court created exception to fruits of position tree doctrine

  • Inevitable discovery doctrine: inevitable that body would be discovered eventually through police search, they can get around the fruit of poisoned tree doctrine

What is the history of the 5th amendment?

• In past you could torture people to get confession

• 5th amendment creates right against self incrimination - “taking the 5th)

What happened in Miranda v Arizona(1965)

1. 4 separate but consolidated cases

2. Defendants made confessions after hours of being along and pressured by police

3. They argus that we didn’t know we had right to remain silent

4. Court held that custodial interrogation creates an inherently coercive environment

5. Without procedural safeguards, statements may be obtained during custody which risk being compelled in violation of 5th amendment rights

   1. “You have right to remain silent; anything you say or do will be held against you. You have right to lawyer and one will be appointed to you if you don’t have one”

What happened in Doyle v Ohio(1976)

1. Were trying to use silence against them and jury bought it

2. Right to remains silent was exercised during the interrogation and now government was now using that silence against them

3. This was broadening of miranda rights

What happened in Salinas v Texas?

1. Salinas voluntarily went to police station to answer questions about person who was killed

2. Police said if we do ballistics test would your weapon match the casings at the scene

3. Mistrial at first

   1. Second trial brought up the fact that he was quiet for that question but not the others

   2. Salinas said I was exercising my 5th amendment right

4. Court said that 5th amendment does not establish complete right to remain silent - only guarantees criminal defendants not be forced to testify against themselves

   1. If you want the exercise the right you have to say that

   2. Any witness who series protecting against self incrimination must specifically explain that protection under 5th

What happens with police encourters with students?

1. If police comes up to you  and asks question you don’t have to answer if they don’t have probable cause or reasonable suspicion

What is an indictment?

An indictment is a formal written accusation issued by a grand jury that charges a person with committing a serious crime

What is the grand jury?

1. Grand jury is made up of a group of 23-20 people whose job is to merely decide if there’s probable cause to bring defendants to trial

2. Grand jury takes place before trial and is secret

   1. Can sit for one big case or multiple small ones

   2. Prsector has broad latitude in presenting evidence

   3. Defendant and defense council are not allowed to be in the room

   4. Handout indictment → you can take it to trial

3. Some states replaced grand jury with preliminary hearing

What is a petite jury?

1. Petite Jury decides guilty and not guilty at trial and usually made up of 6-12 people

How does the Court work?

1. Upper trial court: determines guilty or innocent - aka the circuit court

2. Lower Trial: Cannot say guilty/or innocent ; felonies go to upper trial. Lower trial aka general or district court

   1. Decided is case should go to circuit

3. Big difference between these 2 is that defendant may be present at a preliminary hearing

What is double jeopardy?

1. You can’t be tried twice for the same crime

2. Purposes of double jeopardy

   1. Prevents government from having too much power and protects legitimacy of the system

   2. Finality

What are some limits on Double Jeopardy?

1. Multiple charges for one

   1. A single bad act can violate many criminal laws and can charge you any of them bu you can’t necessarily be convicted of all of them

   2. Ex: killing someone would support charges for murder at 1st degree, 2nd and manslaughter

   3. But, you can’t be convicted of all 3. You can only be found guilty of one specific charge

What happened in Blueford v Arkanasas(2012)

1. Guy charged with killing girlfriend’s kid

2. Prosecutor charged manslaughter, homicide, 1st and 2nd degree murder

3. Jury said we can’t decide on the charge

   1. When retried prosecutor bought all the charges again and defendant said this was double jeopardy

   2. Court said No, that’s not a verdict and because of that you can be tried again on all charges

4. Mistrials don’t bar retrials because you haven’t been acquitted yet

What is eminent domain?

the legal power of the government to seize private property and convert it into public use

What is the takings clause?

1. Due process rights(life, liberty, property)

2. Says government can take your property for a public purpose for compensation

What is the Speedy Trial?

1. In VA, it’s statutory 1 year from date of arrest but if defendant pushes it then it can be pushed off

What are the other 6th amendment rights

1. Public Trial

2. Impartial jury for criminal cases

3. To be informed of the nature and case of accusation

4. To confront witnesses

5. To attend trial

6. To call witnesses

7. To be represented by lawyer

What is the 6th amendment

Right to speedy and public trial

What is the USSC Interpretation of 8th Amendment

• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment

  • Like beheading, burning alive, etc. all unconstitutional

  • But death penalty through firing squad or electruction, etc still constitutional

• 3 strikes and you’re out

  • Defendant has 2 previous violent or secure felonies, prosecutor can seek and enhance punishment of mandatory life in prison

  • This was challenge but court says as long there’s a possibility of parole, it’s constitutional

• Length of sentence must be proportionate to crime usually range of years of prison

What happened in Furman v Georgia?

• 5 states went to SC and death penalty statues in these 35 states were unconstitutional because applied arbitrarily, internationally, and racially

  • Court found the statues unconstitutional and the states rewrite those to make it constitutional

What happened in Herrera v Collins(1993)

• Only new evidence with another constitutional violation is grounds for a new trial

• Basically you can’t present new evidence or trial to get off death row

What is the innocence project?

• In 2000, Illinois released 13 innocent people from death row through evidence like DNA

• Exonerations behan

• Innocent project: to get the innocent people out

What happened in Atkins v VA(2002)

• Says you can’t execute people who are mentally insane

What happened in Roper v Simmons?

• USSC prohibited executing defendants who committed their crimes under age of 18