Fifth Amendment Case Law

0.0(0)
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
Card Sorting

1/4

flashcard set

Earn XP

Description and Tags

Psychology

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

5 Terms

1
New cards
Chambers V Florida
This 1933 case involved the detainment of several persons for questioning for several hours as a result of the murder of Robert Darsey.  After questioning these persons for “several days and several nights” the Police obtained confessions.  As a result, the defendant(s) was found guilty and sentenced to death. On appeal, the SCOTUS ruled the confessions were obtained unlawfully and overturned the verdicts.
2
New cards
Benton V Maryland
This Defendant was charged with Larceny and Robbery and at trial was only found guilty of burglary and was sentenced to 10yrs in prison. He appealed stating his the Grand jury and trial jury were selected unconstitutionally and was awarded a new Grand Jury hearing where he was indicted for both crimes and later convicted of both crimes. Defendant argued this constituted Double Jeopardy. The SCOTUS ruled that Double Jeopardy applied to the states and is part of a person’s Due Process rights, thus overruling Palko v CT and overturning the Defendant’s Larceny Conviction.
3
New cards
Gamble V US
This defendant was charged by the State of Alabama for possession of a weapon and was found guilty. He was later charged Federally, as well. This 2018 case ruled that the Double Jeopardy clause of the 5th amendment does not apply to Federal Courts as State Courts and Federal Courts are, “Separate Sovereigns“.
4
New cards
Miranda V Arizona
The suspect was arrested for kidnapping and rape of a female subject. He was never informed of his Fifth Amendment right of self-incrimination and after two hours made statements that led to his conviction. The statements were later deemed inadmissible; however, he was again found guilty of the crimes.
5
New cards
Dickerson V US
During questioning this suspect admitted to being the get away driver in a robbery. He argued that his statement was not made “voluntarily”, prior to being Mirandized, as L.E. stated. The SCOTUS that the Defendent should have been informed of his constitutional rights as, '‘Miranda has been embedded in routine police practice and has become part of our national culture.‘‘