UCLA COMM 170 FINAL

Right to die/assisted suicide cases-

-Rodriguez v. British Columbia

-Cruzan v Missouri (1990)

-Carter v. Canada (2015)

-Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

-Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)

-Brittany Maynard (2014)

-Myers v. Schneiderman (2017)

in book:

-Washington v Glucksberg (1997)

-Vacco v Quill (1997)

Carter v. Canada (2015)

***overturned the Supreme Court's 1993 ruling in Rodriguez v British Columbia (AG), which had denied a right to assisted suicide***

Landmark Ruling which Recognizes that a prohibition on assisted suicide infringed upon rights.A generation after Rodriguez v. BC, Kay Carter said she did not want to end up "an ironing board on a bed" and was terrified of "dying inch by inch."

In 2010, without telling anyone in Canada other than her children, she travels led to a clinic in Switzerland to drink a fatal dose of drugs. Two of Kay's children, a doctor who would be willing to provide physician-assisted suicide if made legal, and another woman who was also diagnosed with a fatal disease, challenged Canada's prohibition

"The prohibition on physician-assisted dying infringes on the right to LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE," the nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada ruled.

Permitted right-to-die for any competent adult person who:

(1) clearly consents to the termination of life and

(2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes ***enduring suffering that is intolerable*** to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition."

Rodriguez v. British Columbia

CANADA

The law allowed palliative sedation, the removal of life-sustaining medical treatment and refusal of food and water but denied the right to request a doctor's assistance in dying.

Rodriguez had asked: "If I cannot give consent to my own death, whose body is this? Who owns my life?"

Suffering from ALS. Requesting a dignififed death.

Denied that right in a 5-4 vote

Cruzan v Missouri (1990)

"substituted judgements"

Nancy Beth Cruzan was involved in an automobile accident which left her in a "persistent vegetative state." She was sustained for several weeks by artificial feedings through an implanted gastronomy tube. When Cruzan's parents attempted to terminate the life-support system, state hospital officials refused to do so without court approval. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state's policy over Cruzan's right to refuse treatment.

The question is whether the US Constitution forbids the establishment of this procedural requirement by the State. WE HOLD THAT IT DOES NOT

We believe Missouri may legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of this choice through the imposition of heightened evidentiary requirements.

It cannot be disputed that the Due Process Clause protects an interest in life as well as an interest in refusing life sustaining medical treatment.

Did the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit Cruzan's parents to refuse life-sustaining treatment on their daughter's behalf?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that while individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights. Absent "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan desired treatment to be withdrawn, the Court found the State of Missouri's actions designed to preserve human life to be constitutional. Because there was no guarantee family members would always act in the best interests of incompetent patients, and because erroneous decisions to withdraw treatment were irreversible, the Court upheld the state's heightened evidentiary requirements.

-spurred interest in living wills

Cruzan v. Missouri: family and Missouri's argument

Family: •The liberty of the Due Process Clause protects against unwarranted bodily intrusions by the State, including unwanted medical treatment, partly because families always have made these decisions.

Missouri: The right to privacy does not include the right to die -and even if it does, the State's strong interest in preserving life requires that evidence of the person's wishes be proved by "clear and convincing" evidence

"substituted judgements"

In The 1970s and 80s most state courts allowed various forms of what are called _______________ that is they permitted relative or guardians to "surmise" what the patient would have wanted or to act in a patients "best interests"

living will

a written statement detailing a person's desires regarding their medical treatment in circumstances in which they are no longer able to express informed consent, especially an advance directive.

In 1976, CA became first state to adopt ________ legislation. since then, most all other states have joined in

Gallup poll of Americans from 1999-2018

With "doctor-assisted suicide," the patient self-administers a fatal dose of medication prescribed by a doctor.

When a person has a disease that cannot be cured and is living in severe pain, do you think doctors should or should not be allowed by law to assist the patient to commit suicide if the patient requests it?

2018: 65% said yes

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Washington's law making physician-assisted suicide a felony was constitutional.

The Court ruled that there was no right to assisted suicide. "The asserted 'right' to assistance in committing

suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause."

The Court also held that bans on helping people kill themselves were "longstanding expressions of the

States' commitment to the protection and preservation of all human life."

The case touched on constitutional principles including natural rights, limits on rights, and personal liberty, and civic values including the place of law in American society.

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

Dr. Timothy E. Quill, along with other physicians and three seriously ill patients who have since died, challenged the constitutionality of the New York State's ban on physician-assisted suicide. New York's ban, while permitting patients to refuse lifesaving treatment on their own, has historically made it a crime for doctors to help patients commit or attempt suicide, even if patients are terminally ill or in great pain. Following a District Court ruling favoring the State of New York, the Second Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court granted New York certiorari.

Question

Did New York's ban on physician-assisted suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by allowing competent terminally ill adults to withdraw their own lifesaving treatment, but denying the same right to patients who could not withdraw their own treatment and could only hope that a physician would do so for them?

No. Employing a rationality test to examine the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court held that New York's ban was rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting medical ethics, preventing euthanasia, shielding the disabled and terminally ill from prejudice which might encourage them to end their lives, and, above all, the preservation of human life. Moreover, while acknowledging the difficulty of its task, the Court distinguished between the refusal of lifesaving treatment and assisted suicide, by noting that the latter involves the criminal elements of causation and intent. No matter how noble a physician's motives may be, he may not deliberately cause, hasten, or aid a patient's death.

Act of omission vs act commission

Omission:

reject medication, food, water, etc-- don't accelerate death- pulling the plug is omission -machine is keeping you alive and without it you'll die

commission: accelerating right to die -- have been frowned upon since founding of this nation

-no history on condoning such a right

Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)

In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients. Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA). Ashcroft threatened to revoke the medical licenses of physicians who took part in the practice. Oregon sued Ashcroft in federal district court. That court and, later the Ninth Circuit, held Ashcroft''s directive illegal. The courts held that the CSA did not authorize the attorney general to regulate physician-assisted suicide, which was the sort of medical matter historically entrusted to the states.

Question:

Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?

conclusion:

No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that Congress intended the CSA to prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state medical practice. Moreover, the CSA did not authorize Attorney General John Ashcroft to declare a medical practice authorized under state law to be illegitimate.

//Ruling: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court expressed its firm disagreement with the Gonzales/Ashcroft rule. They said "The statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.

To save lives can a prison invalidate "do not resuscitate" orders signed by prisoners on a hunger strike, and so force-feed them against their wishes?

Act of omission

Ex: hunger strike

Can state override individual autonomy of prisoners and keep them alive against their will.

CA says yes the state can step in prison context but only if there is evidence of coercion

If there is no coercion, state can not step in (CA)

The Case of Brittany Maynard (2014)

A change in support for assisted suicide after the high-profile story in 2014 of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard.

April 2014, and her diagnosis was then elevated to grade 4 astrocytoma, also known as glioblastoma, with a prognosis of six months to live.

End of Life Option Act

Act was designed specifically to reduce the risk of coercion and abuse

The bill "is not an ordinary bill because it deals with life and death," Governor Brown wrote. "The crux of the matter is whether the state of California should continue to make it a crime for a dying person to end his life, no matter how great his pain or suffering."

The law went into effect on June 9, 2016.

Two doctors must agree that the patient is terminally ill with six months or less left to live.

The patient also must have the mental competency to make health care decisions for himself or herself.

The patient must self-administer.

The bill requires two oral requests be made by a terminally ill patient to a physician, in addition to one written request, a minimum of 15 days apart, with two witnesses attesting to the request before the prescription is written.

Safeguards against any coercion of patients by establishing felony penalties for coercing or forging a request.

Requires an attending physician to discuss feasible alternatives or additional treatment alternatives with the terminally ill patient, including, but not limited to comfort care, hospice care, palliative care, and pain management.

Provides for a patient's right to rescind the request.

Medical Support for Assisted Suicide

Medical experts have long been divided on the question of whether terminally ill patients should be able to choose to end their lives.

Survey of more than 21,000 medical professionals

2014-

YES (54%)

NO (31%)

It Depends (15%)

2010-

YES (46%)

NO (41%)

It Depends (14%)

Right to Die in Prisons

To save lives, can a prison invalidate "do-not-resuscitate" orders signed by prisoners on a hunger strike, and so force-feed them against their wishes?

Myers v. Schneiderman (2017)

three terminally ill individuals, five medical providers, and End of Life Choices New York ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint with the New York Supreme Court in the County of New York, arguing that it is unclear whether patients are legally able to obtain a prescription for a lethal dose of medicine from a physician, and whether the physicians writing those prescriptions would be subject to criminal prosecution under New York's manslaughter statutes.

New York's Assisted Suicide Statute defines assisting in suicide as "intentionally caus[ing] or aid[ing] another person to commit suicide." Plaintiffs argued that because the physician merely writes the prescription — and the patient then must choose to get the prescription filled, and must also choose to actually take the prescription — the physician is not "intentionally caus[ing] or aid[ing]" suicide.

NY PENAL LAW: a person is guilty of manslaughter when such person intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide

Fears around a recognized right to die?

A prominent legal scholar has commented that the legalization of physician-assisted death would "tend toward, if not require, the legalization not only of assisted suicide, but of any act of consensual homicide."

This could permit, he wrote, "sadomasochist killings" and "mass suicide pacts," as well as duels, illicit drug use, organ sales, and the "sale of one's own life."

Pew survey of americans shows eroding support

...

In re Quinlan (1976)

'Right to refuse'. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted permission to the parents to remove their daughter, Karen, from a ventilator after she had been in a coma for a year

-doctors refused, parents went to court

-

JURY TRIALS

The 6th amendment states in part that IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS the accused shall enjoy the right to a trial "by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed"

the 6th amendment right provides.....

a baseline for protection

Johnson v. Louisiana (1972)

Johnson (defendant) was convicted on robbery charges under a guilty verdict rendered by nine of twelve jurors. Johnson appealed his conviction and argued that conviction by less than a unanimous jury failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, held that a "split-verdict" system was constitutionally "inoffensive" and reasoned that less-than-unanimous jury verdicts did not deprive defendants in criminal prosecutions of their rights under the due process of law.

They concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require unanimity in state criminal cases.

Apodaca v. Oregon (1972)

Apodaca and two other defendants were convicted of assault, burglary, and grand larceny before three separate juries, all of which returned verdicts which were less than unanimous. Two of the cases were 11-1 and the other was 10-2 in favor of conviction.

Question: Is a defendant's right to a trial by jury in a criminal case in a state court (as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments) violated if the accused is convicted by a less-than-unanimous jury?

-the Court wrote, "In terms of [the jury] function, we perceive no difference between juries required to act unanimously and those permitted to convict or acquit by votes of 10 to two or 11 to one."

-found that the accused's right to a jury trial does not require that juries return unanimous decisions in order to convict.

-most important function of the jury is to provide "commonsense judgment" in evaluating the respective arguments of accused and accuser. Requiring unanimity would not necessarily contribute to this function. A distinction was drawn, however, between capital and non-capital crimes.

Ramos v. Louisiana

In 2020, the Court is reconsidering this issue in a murder case in which a man was found guilty by a 10—2 vote.

Jury size

Does the right to a jury trial include the right to a 12 person jury?

No, court has decided can have as few as 6 JURORS BUT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS VERDICT BUT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A UNANIMOUS VERDICT IF 12 JURORS??

Private activity cases:

-Olmstead v United States 1928

-Katz v United States 1967

-Stanley v Georgia 1969

-Bowers v Hardwick 1986

-Lawrence v Texas 2003

Olmstead v. United States (1928)

a) For a number of months, State and federal law enforcement agents conducted an investigation of a Seattle-based bootlegging operation, which smuggled alcoholic beverages into the United States over the Canadian border a hundred miles away. Olmstead was engaged in the illegal sale of these goods, prohibited by the Volstead Act.

Much of the case against Olmstead was based on information gathered by a wiretap on his home telephone, placed without prior issue of a warrant, on the telephone lines outside. Olmstead was arrested and convicted of violations of the Volstead Act.

b) Issue: Did the 4th amendments "search and seizure" protections permit the use of wiretaps by law enforcement officers without a warrant?

c) Decision: In a narrow reading of the 4th amendment, the court declared that wiretap evidence was admissible without a warrant, since the tap could be set with " no physical trespass" in the dwelling of a subject.

Katz v. United States (1967)

Facts: FBI agents suspected Charles Katz of engaging in illegal bookmaking activity; in particular, they thought he was "transmitting wagering information by telephone from Los Angeles to Miami and Boston." To gather evidence, they placed listening and recording devices outside the telephone booth where Katz made his calls and used the transcripts of his conversation to obtain an eight- count indictment.

Katz challenged it asserting his conversations were private and the government violated his 4th amendment rights.

Expanded the scope of the 4th amendment rights to include protection against certain kinds of electronic invasions of an individual's privacy.

court ruled in favor of Katz

Stanley v Georgia 1969

Police searched Robert Stanley's home looking for bookmaking materials, but they instead found pornographic films and arrested him for possessing obscene materials in violation of Georgia law

Taking a lesson from Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead he asserted: "If the 1st amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or films he may watch."

Court overturned the conviction and ruled that there is a constitutional right to possess and use even obscene materials in the privacy of one's home

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Facts: An atlanta police officer arrived at Michael Hardwick's home to serve him an arrest warrant for failure to keep a court date. According to the officer, one of Hardwick's housemates answered the door. He told the officer that he did not know if Hardwick was home but that the officer was free to enter and look for him. As the officer walked down the hallway, he passed a partially open bedroom door and engaged in sodomy with another man. The officer arrested Hardwick for violating a Georgia law that prohibited the practice of oral or anal sex. The district attorney decided not to pursue the matter, but hardwick and his attorneys challenged the law, asserting that it violated the fundamental right to privacy as articulated in Griswold and should be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny.

Question: Did the court of appeals err when it concluded that Georgia's sodomy statute infringes upon the fundamental rights of homosexuals and required the state to demonstrate a compelling interest to support the constitutionality of the statute?

Court ruling: in a 5-4 decision, the court upheld the Georgia law. Writing for the majority opinion, white said, "fundamental liberties are characterized as those that are deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition, a type of liberty that according to white, consensual homosexual sodomy was surely not.

Georgia was allowed to ban homosexual sexual activity

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

OVERTURNED BOWERS

Facts of the case

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, with Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), controlling.

Question

Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual,"

Same sex marriage cases:

-Goodridge v Department of Public Health 2003

-Perry v Hollingsworth 2013

-United States v Windsor 2013

-Obergefell v. Hodges 2015

Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003)

case in which the Court held that the Massachusetts Constitution requires the state to legally recognize same-sex marriage.

Held that state laws allowing only heterosexual couples to marry discriminated against gay persons in violation of the state constitution

Shortly thereafter the court clarified that allowing gay couples to enter into civil unions but not legal marriages was not an acceptable substitute for full equality.

In 2004 Massachussets became the first state to allow gay couples to marry.

In the decade following goodridge, 37 states and the district of columbia moved to legalize same sex marriage (26 bc judges invalidated their bans, 11 and dc the public or its reps voted to legalize it)

Perry v. Hollingsworth (2013)

A due process and equal protection challenge to an amendment to the California constitution banning same-sex marriage.

While the court dismissed the case for lack of standing, the majority's opinion had the effect of permitting same sex marriage in California.

United States v. Windsor (2013)

Struck down the federal Defense of Marriage of Marriage Act's (DOMA) restrictions of marriage rights to only heterosexual couples as unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment due process clause; same sex married couples now receive federal benefits (Roberts Court)

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

Four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples:

The right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. This abiding connection between marriage and liberty is why Loving invalidated interracial marriage bans under the due process clause. Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, child rearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.

The right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. This point was central to Griswold v connecticut, which held the constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception. Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that the freedom stops there.

It safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of child rearing, procreation, and education. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. (stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser, significant material costs)

This court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order. EX: taxation, hospital access, medical decision making authority, adoption rights, etc. the states have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the nation's society

Laws discriminating based on a suspect class such as race, national origin, religion, and gender (a quasi-suspect class) receive :

heightened scrutiny.

Drug Testing Cases:

-Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association 1989

-National Treasury Union v. Von Raab 1989

-Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)

-Chandler v. Miller 1997

-Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)

-Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)

Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Association 1989

Program: Requirement of the Federal Railroad Administration that employees take a breath or urine test if they are involved in a train accident or other serious incident.

Court's Holding: The justices ruled, 7-2, that although "federal regulations requiring employees of private railroads to produce urine samples for chemical testing implicate the Fourth Amendment, as those tests invade reasonable expectations of privacy." the program at issue was not unreasonable. The court said the government has a strong interest in preventing train accidents, some of which had been caused by employees using drugs and alcohol.

National Treasury Union v. Von Raab 1989

Program: Requirements of the U.S. Customs Bureau that all job applicants be screened for drugs, as well as those seeking promotions to positions that (1) involve direct drug "interdiction," (2) require employees to carry weapons, and (3) require employees to handle classified material.

Court's Holding: The justices upheld the program, 5-4, even though it was a suspicionless program that authorized drug testing without any evidence that a crime had been committed. The majority found the program reasonable because "the Government's compelling interests in preventing the promotion of drug users to positions where they might endanger the integrity of our Nation's borders or the life of the citizenry outweigh the privacy interests of those who seek promotion to these positions, who enjoy a diminished expectation of privacy by virtue of the special, and obvious, physical and ethical demands of the positions."

Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)

Supreme Court ruled that schools may require student athletes to submit to drug testing upon request

Program: School system requirement that students wishing to play sports sign a form giving consent to drug testing. The school tests all athletes at the beginning of each season of their sport and randomly thereafter.

Court's Holding: The Court held, 6-3, that random, suspicionless drug testing of students by public school officials does not violate the Constitution. The Court said that students have reduced privacy expectations and that "Legitimate privacy expectations are even less with regard to student athletes. School sports are not for the bashful. They require 'suiting up' before each practice or event, and showering and changing afterwards." Moreover, "by choosing to 'go out for the ream,' they voluntarily subject themselves to a degree of regulation even higher than that imposed on students generally."

Chandler v. Miller (1997)

Supreme Court refused to allow Georgia to require all candidates for state office to pass a urinalysis drug test thirty days before qualifying for nomination or election (law violated search and seizure clause)

Program: Law passed by Georgia requiring all candidates for public office to take a urine test as a condition for appearing on the ballot.

Court's Holding: The justices held, 8-1, that the law violated the Constitution. For the majority, Ginsburg noted that the Court had upheld drug-testing programs for which the government presented some "special need," such as the protection of public safety. Here, Georgia was seeking to protect its "image," which is insufficient to justify the law. "However well-meant, the candidate drug test Georgia has devised diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake. The Fourth Amendment shields society against that state action."

Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001)

Program: State hospital policy of conducting drug tests on obstetrical patients and turning the results (if positive) over to law enforcement agents.

Court's Holding: " The justices held, 6-3, that the policy violated the Constitution. According to the majority, "Respondents argue in essence that their ultimate purpose-- namely, protecting the health of both mother and child-- is a beneficent one. In Chandler, however, we did not simply accept the State's invocation of a 'special need.' Instead, we carried out a 'close review' of the scheme at issue before concluding that the need in question was not 'special,' as that term has been defined in our cases. In this case, a review of the... policy plainly reveals that the purpose actually served by the hospital searches is "ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control.'"

-violation of the 4th amendment if patient did not consent

Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)

Program: School district policy requiring all middle and high school students to consent to urinalysis testing for drugs in order to participate in any extracurricular activity.

Court's Holding: The Court found, 5-4, that the school policy was a reasonable means of furthering the school's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its students and that the invasion of the students' privacy was not significant.

Privacy in the Information Age cases:

-Doe vs Reed 2010

-City of Ontario, California v. Quon 2010

Doe vs Reed (2010)

The court considered a challenge to the public release of petitions (including the signers' names and addresses) supporting a ballot referendum that would have overturned a state law expanding the rights of same-sex domestic partners.

The court held (8-1) that the release of the petitions did not violate the First amendment rights of the signers because the state has an important interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process.

City of Ontario, California v. Quon (2010)

The court considered whether the city had infringed on police officer's privacy rights under the 4th amendment when it checked the text messages on their pagers. In a 9-0 ruling, it held that the search of public employees' pagers was reasonable, but it was quick to deem its decision "narrow" explicitly stating that a "broad holding concerning employees' privacy expectations vis-a-vis employer-provided technological equipment might have implications for future cases that cannot be predicted."

Less than ____ of all criminal prosecutions go to trial

10%

Speedy Trials

The framers considered it unfair for the government to lay criminal charges against suspects and then postpone their trials for months or even years. Consequently, the Sixth amendment states that trials must be speedy.

speedy trial cases

-Barker v. Wingo 1972

-Vermont v Brillon 2009

Barker v. Wingo 1972

Prosecutors had to ask the court to postpone Barker's trial sixteen times. When the twelfth continuance was requested, Barker's attorneys began to assert a violation of the speedy trial provision of the sixth amendment.

Finally, five years after he was indicted for murder, Barker was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison.

Barker's attorneys appealed the conviction on the grounds that the 5 year delay was a violation of the Sixth amendment.

Court ruling: A unanimous Supreme Court, refused to designate a specific length of time time that would constitute unreasonable delay. Instead, the justices recognized this period could vary from case to case. The court, however, established 4 criteria that should be considered in deciding questions of unreasonable delay:

1. The length of delay

2. The reason for the delay

3. The point at which the defendant begins asserting a 6th amendment violation

4. Whether the delay prejudiced the defendant's case

Applied to this case, the Court found no constitutional violation. Although the 5 year delay was admittedly long, the reason for delay-- the unavailability of an important witness-- was sound.

Vermont v. Brillon (2009)

Michael Brillon had been given a state lawyer, but had asked for a different one because the original lawyer was incompetent. He did this 5-6 more times until his trial was too long to be considered "speedy". he argued that the case should be dismissed because it wasn't speedy.

Decision: 7-2 in favor of Vermont, The Supreme Court held that the Vermont Supreme Court erred when it categorized assigned counsel as a state actor in the criminal justice system and that it was not justified in treating Mr. Brillon's speedy-trial claims differently than if he had retained private counsel.

jury members

To put together representative panels, many jurisdictions follow a procedure that works this way:

-Individuals living within a specified geographical area are called for jury duty. Most localities randomly select names from voter registration, property tax, and or driver's license lists

-Those selected form the jury pool, or venire, the group from which attorneys choose the jury.

-The judge may conduct initial interviews and excuse certain classes of people (felons, illiterates, the mentally ill) and certain occupational groups, as allowed under the laws of the particular jurisdiction.

-The remaining individuals are available to be chosen to serve on a trial jury. In the final selection phase, the opposing attorneys interview the prospective jurors in the process called voir dire. During voir dire, attorneys can dismiss those individuals they believe would not vote in the best interest of their clients. The attorneys, therefore, select the jury.

Swain v. Alabama (1965)

-set precedent for batson v kentucky

-defendants need to show proof of repeated striking of african americans in order to establish a violation of equal protection clause

-made prosecutors immune from any constitutional scrutiny as it was almost impossible for a defendant to prove discrimination

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Under Batson v. Kentucky (1986), and later decisions building upon Batson, parties are constitutionally prohibited from exercising peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.

Batson, an African-American male, was accused of taking about $700 worth of jewelry from a Louisville home in September 1981 and selling it at a downtown pawn shop.

His lawyer appealed his conviction on the grounds that a prosecutor unfairly excluded all four African-Americans from the jury that convicted him.

What three-part test represents A Batson challenge? (Impartial Jury)

1.A defendant must show that a juror was dismissed at first based on race.

2.The prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for eliminating the juror.

3.The trial court must determine if there was "purposeful discrimination.""A purpose to discriminate must be present which may be proven by systematic exclusion of eligible jurymen of the proscribed race or by unequal application of the law to such an extent as to show intentional discrimination."

Powers v. Ohio (1991)

Court ruled that criminal defendants may object to race-based exclusion of jurors through peremptory challenges even when the defendant and the excluded juror belong to different racial groups

Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)

Applied Batson framework to civil cases, holding that private litigants may not use their peremptory challenges in a racially biased manner.

George v McCollum 1992

The Court held that the prosecution can stop the defense from exercising its peremptories to eliminate blacks from a jury

In other words, it ruled that the batson framework applies to both sides of criminal cases, the prosecution and the defense

J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel T.B. (1994)

Supreme court extended Batson to gender

The court accepted this invitation to extend the line of reasoning of McClum to jury challenges based on sex

Applied Batson to intential sex discrimination in selecting jurors

Jury size cases:

Williams v Florida 1970

Williams v. Florida (1970)

Juries of fewer than 12 members are permitted by the U.S. Constitution.

jury verdicts

Following the English tradition, the framers thought juries should reach unanimous verdicts or none at all.

If a jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, the judge declares the jury "hung" and the prosecutor either schedules a retrial or releases the defendant.

For the sake of efficient justice, some states altered the unanimity rule for 12 person juries, requiring instead the agreement of 9 or 10 of the 12.

impartial juries

a group of citizens sworn to give a fair verdict according to the evidence presented in a court of law

The Sixth Amendment requires judges to regulate trials, ensuring, among other things, that jury members have not prejudged the outcome. In a highly publicized case, the judge's task can become very difficult. The judge must deal with the media exercising its constitutional guarantee of free press. How can judges keep trials fair without interfering with the right of the press and the public?

impartial jury cases

-Press v. Jury: The Warren Court

-Sheppard v Maxwell 1966

-Press v juries: After Sheppard

-Gannett Co. v. DePasquale 1979

Press v. Jury: The Warren Court

Before the mid 1960s no balance existed between freedom of the press and right to an impartial jury, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS outweighed the latter

The warren court placed limitations on the media

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

Facts of the case

After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. On appeal from an Ohio district court ruling supporting his claim, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. When Sheppard appealed again, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

decision the Court found that Sheppard did not receive a fair trial. Noting that although freedom of expression should be given great latitude, the Court held that it must not be so broad as to divert the trial away from its primary purpose: adjudicating both criminal and civil matters in an objective, calm, and solemn courtroom setting.

Press v juries: After Sheppard

As trial court judges continued to limit the role and presence of media in criminal proceedings, critics began to question the new balance between rights.

This time the criticism was that the courts were excessively favoring the rights of the defendant.

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (1979)

A newspaper company asked the Court to prohibit a judge from closing the pretrial hearings for a highly publicized case. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Potter Stewart refused to do so. Adopting the Warren Court's reasoning in Sheppard, he claimed that adverse publicity can endanger proceedings, a problem particularly acute at the pretrial stages.

He dealt with Gannet's assertion of a first amendment right by stating "any denial of access in this case was not absolute but only temporary."

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

Facts: a case had 3 mistrials, gained a lot of public and media interest. The Attorney asked the judge to close the trial to the public bc such attention could interfere with jury selection. The prosecutor voiced no objection,the judge granted the request, a privilege judges had under the Virginia closure law. Reporters covering the case brought suit against the state, arguing that its law violated the first amendment.

In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the right to attend criminal trials was "implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment." The Court held that the First Amendment encompassed not only the right to speak but also the freedom to listen and to receive information and ideas. The Court also noted that the First Amendment guaranteed the right of assembly in public places such as courthouses. The Court emphasized that "certain unarticulated rights" were implicit in enumerated guarantees and were often "indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined."

What is a distinct group?

is there something in your life experience that makes you prone to interpret evidence in a different way

what are the three main categories known as distinctive:

Race, ethnicity and gender

cause

person will not make a decision based off of the law; example does not believe in death penalty for a case that involves the use of the death penalty, person will be taken off the jury

peremptory challenge

a defendant's or lawyer's objection to a proposed juror, made without needing to give a reason; given a certain amount of challenges one can use

What happens if a jury does not decide unanimously?

it is declared a hung jury. The defendant does not go to jail but the prosecutor can choose to retry the case if they wish. (if they do, may waste tax payer dollars etc.)

Why do we have peremptory challenges?

- long history of it including British system which we adopted our legal system

- may have good faith disagreement with judge

Does a fair cross section of the community requirement apply to the seated jury or the jury pool?

jury pool

Can you waive the right to a jury trial?

If written, voluntary, knowing, and intelligent a defendant can waive a jury trial.

Why would you want to waive your right to a jury trial?

situations where a judge would have better judgment such as when there is:

Negative pretrial publicity

Heinous crime

Long criminal record

Very complicated and technical legal issues

What does strict scrutiny apply to?

fundamental rights and suspect classes

what does intermediate scrutiny apply to?

quasi-suspect classes

rational basis

this means only that a law must only be rationally related to some legitimate end

what characterizes a suspect class?

-The group has historically suffered discrimination, prejudice, and social stigma.

-The group possess an immutable and/or highly visible trait.

-The group is relatively powerlessto protect itself via the political process.

-The group's distinguishing characteristic does not keep it from contributing meaningfully to society

why do homosexuals not qualify as a suspect class?

The argument is they are clearly not politically powerless considering all the recent legislation passed in their favor

Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)

- Initial panel of eligible jurors must represent a "fair cross-section of community"

- overturned a decision that allowed women to be excluded from jury pool.

- In a 1975 case, a Louisiana law stated: "A woman shall not be selected for jury service unless she has previously filed with the clerk of court of the parish in which she resides a written declaration of her desire to be subject to jury service."

- The defendant, Billy Taylor, was convicted for kidnapping by an ALL MALE JURY. He challenged the law on the grounds that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury

Duren v. Missouri (1979)

- In a 1979 case, a Missouri law stated: "No citizen shall be disqualified from jury service because of sex, but the court shall excuse any woman who requests exemption therefrom before being sworn as a juror."

- In order to establish a a presumed violation of the law, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in pools from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonablein relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusionof the group in the jury-selection process.

- If a presumed violation is established, then the State must show that its jury selection system advances a significant State interest

Perkett v. Elem (1995)

-Elem steals a purse from a woman walking home from work. He's convicted of robbery.

The defense challenges the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to strike the only two potential African-American male jurors.

- "I struck one because of his long curly hair. He appeared to me to not be a good juror for that fact, the fact that he had long hair hanging down shoulder length, curly, unkempt hair. Also, he had a mustache and a goatee type beard. And the other also has a mustache and a goatee type beard. Those are the only two people on the jury with facial hair of any kind of all the men and, of course, the women, those are the only two with the facial hair."

- SHOWS HOW EASY IT IS TO GIVE THE RACE NEUTRAL REASONS FOR THE BATSON CHALLENGE

Foster v. Chatman (2016)

(6th amendment) Background: Timothy Tyrone Foster, an 18-year-old black man, was charged with murdering Queen White, an elderly white woman. At the trial, the prosecution used peremptory strikes against all four of the qualified black jurors.The prosecution provided reasons, and the trial court held that the reasons were sufficient. An all-white jury convicted Foster of murder and imposed the death penalty. Decision: 7-1 for foster.The SUPREME Court held that the third step of a Batson challenge, which requires the defendant to show that the strikes of prospective jurors based on race was purposeful discrimination, was clearly met in this case, and the state court erred in finding otherwise.

- in this case the notes of the prosecution were there, so it was evident to the Supreme Court that there was purposeful discrimination

flowers v Mississippi (2019)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

- Case determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Stats may accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so though.

- The Court holds that there's no requirement to exempt people from generally applicable laws. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore on the basis ofreligious belief generally applicable laws

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (1993)

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability [except if the burden] (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

does the RFRA apply to states or federally?

federally, but about half the states have passed their own RFRA

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018)

-court did not decide on the free speech or free exercise constitutional issues.

-The Colorado law at issue in this case, which prohibited discrimination against gay people in purchasing products and services, had to be applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion.

- However, the Court stated that Phillips did not receive this neutral treatment, with members of the Commission showing clear and impermissible hostility toward his religious beliefs. The Court explained that commissioners' comments disparaging Phillips' beliefs and characterizing them as rhetorical were inappropriate, though these comments were not mentioned or disavowed in subsequent legal proceedings.

- The Court concluded that these comments cast doubt on the fairness of the Commission's consideration of Phillips' claims.

- The Court concluded that the Commission's actions violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to use hostility toward religion or a religious viewpoint as a basis for laws or regulations.

Telescope Media Group v. Lucero (2019, 8thCir.)

-In violation of Minnesota's Human Rights Act, a Christian videography business refuses to offer services for same-sex weddings, saying that it would go against their vision of marriage.

Does the law violate their free speech or free exercise rights?

- Court said you are compelling these individuals to convey a message against their beliefs so we are applying strict scrutiny

Videography company wins bc it is not the least restrictive way to go about it bc there are a lot of other videographers willing to do it