CL122 Final All

Minnick v. Mississippi (1990)

The suspect was arrested for murder and asked for a lawyer, which was provided.

After meeting with the attorney, a sheriff came back and questioned him again.

The suspect confessed and was sentenced to death.

The Supreme Court ruled that once a suspect invokes the right to counsel,

👉 all police questioning must stop

👉 Police cannot re-initiate the interrogation, even after the suspect consults with a lawyer

👉 Only the suspect can choose to resume the conversation

🧠 Memory Trick:

“Once you lawyer up, cops shut up.”

What is the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” doctrine, and when is evidence from an illegal confession inadmissible?

The doctrine bars evidence that is derived from an illegal or unconstitutional action, such as an unlawful confession.
However, such evidence will only be excluded if the confession was involuntary or coerced, not just because it violated Miranda.

✅ Police must prove they would’ve legitimately discovered the evidence without the confession (independent source or inevitable discovery).
🧪 It’s closely related to the exclusionary rule, like in Mapp v. Ohio.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Rotten confessions spoil the whole case — unless they were just bruised by Miranda.”
Only coerced or involuntary confessions truly poison the fruit.

New York v. Quarles (1984)

If there's an immediate danger to public safety, police can ask limited, targeted questions without first issuing Miranda warnings.

💬 Example: “Where’s the gun?”

🧑‍⚖ Case Reference:

– Officer asked armed suspect about gun location before Miranda.

public safety exception

Held: Statement admissible due to public safety concern.

What kind of evidence is not protected by Miranda? (Non-Testimonial Exception)

Miranda only protects testimonial communication, not physical characteristics.
✅ These are admissible without Miranda:

• DNA

• Blood

• Fingerprints

• Hair

• Voice samples

• Facial image

• Routine booking questions

🧑‍⚖ Key Principle:
Non-testimonial evidence doesn't trigger Miranda (per Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 1990).

What is immunity, and how does it impact Miranda rights?

If the government grants immunity, the suspect must testify or face contempt of court.
Two types:

1. Transactional Immunity – Full protection from prosecution for the act

2. Use Immunity – Testimony can't be used against them, but prosecution is still possible with other evidence

🧑‍⚖ Case Example:
Kastigar v. United States (1972) – Upheld the constitutionality of use immunity as sufficient to compel testimony.

What does the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause guarantee, and how does it differ from the 14th Amendment?

The 5th Amendment guarantees that the federal government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law — meaning fairness in legal procedures.
The 14th Amendment extends the same protection to actions by state governments.

⚖ Due process includes:

• No arbitrary or unreasonable actions by the government

• Presumption of innocence

• Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

📌 It is intentionally broad to allow flexible interpretation over time.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“5th = Feds, 14th = States — both must play fair.”

What rights does due process guarantee in criminal cases?

In criminal cases, due process ensures fair treatment by granting:

Right to Notice

Must be informed of the charges and evidence against them

Citizens must know what conduct is legal vs. illegal

Right to a Hearing

Opportunity to be heard, present a defense, and challenge the government's case

⚖ These protections help prevent arbitrary punishment and wrongful convictions.

🧠 Memory Trick:

“Hear it, See it, Fight it.”

Substantive Due Process

Focuses on what the government is doing

The rules or laws themselves must be fair and just

Protects fundamental rights from government overreach

Procedural Due Process

Focuses on how the government acts

Requires fair procedures, like notice and an opportunity to be heard

Ensures the "game has rules"

How does substantive due process protect against school segregation?

Substantive Due Process protects fundamental rights — even if not explicitly listed.
It was used to strike down segregation laws that burdened liberty without justification.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Segregation fails both ways — states (14th) and feds (5th) must play fair.”

U.S. v. Windsor (2013)

A federal law denied benefits to same-sex spouses, even when legally married.
This placed a burden on their liberty without a compelling government interest, violating substantive due process.

The Court applied strict scrutiny and found the law was not narrowly tailored.
Even though the 5th Amendment lacks an Equal Protection Clause, its Due Process Clause requires fair and equal treatment by the federal government.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No equal clause? Due process still calls for equal treatment for all.”

(Rochin v California(1952))

Police broke into a home, saw the suspect swallow drugs, then had his stomach forcibly pumped at a hospital without consent.
The method used to obtain the evidence was brutal and coercive.

The Court ruled the conduct "shocked the conscience" and violated substantive due process — the government's actions were too extreme, even if the evidence was real.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Due process doesn’t just mean fair trial — it means don’t act like tyrants.”

In re Gault (1967)

A 15-year-old was arrested for making obscene calls. He was not given a lawyer, not advised of his rights, and not allowed to confront witnesses — and was sentenced to six years in custody.

The Court ruled that juveniles are entitled to key due process protections:

• Notice of charges

• Right to appointed counsel

• 5th Amendment protections (e.g., Miranda rights)

• Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses

⚠ However, juveniles do not have a right to a jury trial in juvenile court.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Kids get the rules — but not the jury.”

Goss v. Lopez (1971)

Students were suspended for 10 days without a hearing or appeal.
The Court ruled that public education is a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Students also have a liberty interest in their reputation, which can be harmed by suspension.

Therefore, schools must provide:

• Notice of the charges

• Some form of hearing before suspension (even if informal)

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No education without explanation.”

6th Amendment Clause 

Guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.

6th Amendment – What historical concerns shaped the right to a fair trial?

The right to a fair, public trial with a jury was born from colonial fear of British injustice.

• In England, jury trials were for civil cases only (property/money), not criminal trials

• Criminal trials were held in secret courts, without juries, and run by magistrates appointed by the King

• These courts convicted dissenters, especially colonists who opposed the crown

• Suspects were often transported back to England for trial

The Founders wanted to stop any future government from abusing power like the King, so they created rights to:

• A speedy and public trial

• A local jury

• The right to counsel, to confront, and compel witnesses

Early protections included:
📜 Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) – right to speedy public trial with lawyer
📜 Virginia Declaration of Rights – right to local jury, confront witnesses

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No more kings, no secret things — trials must be fair and seen.”

6th Amendment: What rights does it guarantee to the accused in criminal cases?

• Right to Speedy Trial

• Right to Public Trial

• Right to an Impartial jury

• Right to Trial where act was committed

• Informed of the Nature and Cause of the Accusations - due process

• Right to Confront Witnesses

• Right to Subpoena WItnesses

• Right to Counsel 

  • Effective Counsel 

    • Appointed Counsel

What is the purpose of the right to a Speedy Trial, and how does it function in practice?

Back:
This right protects the presumption of innocence by ensuring a quick determination of guilt or innocence.
It helps:

• Limit time in custody

• Reduce damage to reputation and mental strain

• Increase chances of an accurate verdict

• Improve witness availability and memory

✅ The accused can waive this right.
📍 In California, trial must occur within 60 days of arraignment on an information.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Justice delayed is memory decayed — and innocence betrayed.”

Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)

A protester was charged with trespassing during a civil rights demonstration. After a mistrial, prosecutors indefinitely postponed the case using a rare state procedure. The accused was left in legal limbo.

The Court ruled this violated the 6th Amendment right to a Speedy Trial, now fully applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.
📜 Based on historical legal traditions, including the Magna Carta (1215), the Court emphasized that prosecutors can't pause cases indefinitely.
✅ The charges were dismissed.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No pause button on justice.”

Barker v. Wingo (1972)

A man was charged with murder, but the state delayed his trial 17 times over 5 years to try a co-defendant first.
He did not object to most continuances.

The Court upheld the conviction, saying the delay did not automatically violate the 6th Amendment.
Instead, courts must evaluate each case individually to determine if the delay was unreasonable and harmful.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Time alone doesn’t win the case — protest and harm must show the race.”

What are the four factors in the Barker Test for Speedy Trial violations?

To decide if the right to a Speedy Trial was violated, courts apply a balancing test using these four factors:

1. Length of the Delay

2. Reason for the Delay

3. Whether the Defendant Asserted the Right

4. Prejudice or Harm to the Defendant

⚖ No single factor is controlling — it’s a totality of circumstances analysis.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Long delay + bad reason + no protest + harm = violation.”

What does the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 require in federal cases?

This federal law sets strict time limits to enforce the 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial:

• Trial must start within 70 days of indictment or initial appearance

• No more than 100 days after arrest in most cases

• Some limited exceptions apply (e.g., motions, continuances for cause)

Applies only to federal prosecutions — states may have their own rules (e.g., California: 60 days from arraignment).

🧠 Memory Trick:
“100 days or justice decays.”

Doggett v. U.S. (1992)

A man was indicted on drug charges, fled the U.S., and was located in Panama.
The government knew where he was but failed to act.
He returned to the U.S. and lived openly for 6 years before being arrested.

The Court applied the Barker Test and reversed the conviction:

• Length: Over 8 years from indictment to arrest

• Reason: Government negligence

• Defendant asserted his right

• Prejudice presumed due to extreme delay and loss of defense strength

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Negligence + years = justice disappears.”

In re Oliver (1948)

A man was summoned to testify in a one-man secret court investigating gambling.
After testifying, the judge decided he was evasive, and convicted and sentenced him to 60 days in jail — all without a public hearing.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 6th Amendment right to a public trial applies to the states via the 14th Amendment.
Secret proceedings violated this right because they were not just investigative — they were criminal in nature.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Justice can’t hide behind closed doors.”

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

A doctor accused of killing his wife faced a media circus during trial:

• 20 reporters inside the courtroom

• Jurors publicly identified and harassed

• Media spread prejudicial and unrelated allegations

The Court ruled that the judge failed to protect the defendant’s due process rights, violating the 14th Amendment.
The “massive, pervasive, and prejudicial” media coverage made a fair trial impossible.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“When media runs the court, justice falls short.”

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (1979)

A defendant in a murder case requested to exclude the public and press from a pre-trial hearing involving a confession.
The motion was granted, and a newspaper’s request for the transcript was denied.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 6th Amendment right to a public trial belongs to the defendant, not the press or public.
Judges may close pre-trial proceedings if necessary to protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Fair trial > front page.”

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

After three mistrials, a defendant in a murder case requested that the fourth trial be closed to the public and press.
The judge granted the request — no one was allowed inside.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment gives the public and press the right to attend criminal trials.
This right is rooted in history and serves as a check on government power.
While the 6th Amendment protects the defendant, that right must be balanced with freedom of the press and public accountability.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No justice behind locked doors.”

6th Amendment: What is the right to an impartial and local jury, and how does it function?

he 6th Amendment guarantees the right to be tried by an impartial jury in the state and district where the crime occurred.
This ensures fairness and prevents government manipulation of trial locations.

⚖ The right is found in both:

• The Bill of Rights (6th Amendment)

• Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution

📊 In practice:

• 97% of federal criminal cases end in plea deals

• 94% of state criminal cases also end in pleas

So, while the jury trial right is fundamental, it’s rarely used — but vital when invoked.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Hometown justice, unbiased voices.”

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)

A Black teenager was convicted of a misdemeanor (max 2 years) for slapping a white teen and was denied a jury trial.
He was found guilty in a bench trial and sentenced to 60 days in jail.

The Supreme Court held that the 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Because the potential punishment was 2 years, it was considered “serious” enough to require a jury.
The Court emphasized the historical importance of jury trials, especially for offenses with 6+ months of possible jail time.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Serious time needs serious voices — give the people a jury.”

Williams v. Florida (1970)

A man was convicted of robbery in Florida by a 6-person jury and sentenced to life in prison.
He challenged the conviction, arguing that the 6th Amendment requires 12 jurors.

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not mandate 12-member juries.
The purpose of a jury is to prevent government oppression, and a 6-person jury still fulfills that role — as long as it’s in a non-capital case.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“6 is enough — unless it’s death.”

Apodaca v. Oregon (1972)

A man was convicted 11–1 by a jury in Oregon, which allowed non-unanimous verdicts for felonies.
He argued this violated his 6th Amendment right.

The Court ruled that unanimous jury verdicts are only required in federal cases, not state trials (except in capital cases).
States could convict with split juries in non-capital criminal trials.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Split decision? Still a conviction — unless it’s federal.”

Ramos v. Louisiana (2020)

A man was convicted of murder in Louisiana by a 10–2 jury verdict.
He challenged the law allowing non-unanimous juries in state felony trials.

The Supreme Court overturned the earlier rule and held that the 6th Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in all criminal trials, state or federal, through the 14th Amendment.

This ruling overturned Apodaca and required states to follow the same standard as federal courts.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“If it takes 12 to accuse, it takes 12 to convict.”

Parker v. Gladden (1966)

A defendant was convicted of murder in Oregon. During trial, a bailiff told a juror, “Oh that wicked fellow… he is guilty.”

The Court reversed the conviction, holding that:

• Jurors must base decisions only on evidence presented in court

• The 6th Amendment guarantees an impartial jury, free from outside influence

• Comments like the bailiff’s violate due process and the right to confront witnesses

🧠 Memory Trick:
“If it’s not from the stand, it’s out of hand.”

How is an impartial jury selected, and what tools do attorneys use during voir dire?

During voir dire, attorneys question the jury pool (venire) to uncover bias.

• Each side gets equal time to ask about background, experiences, or potential prejudice.

• Challenges for Cause: Unlimited — used when a juror shows clear bias.

• Peremptory Challenges: Limited — can dismiss jurors without stating a reason, but cannot be discriminatory.

• The jury must reflect a fair cross-section of the community — no systematic exclusion of race, gender, etc.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Voir dire clears the bias — cause and choice both apply.”

Batson v. Kentucky (1986):

• DA excluded all 4 Black jurors, resulting in an all-white jury convicting a Black defendant.

• Supreme Court ruled: Race-based peremptory challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.

• Attorneys must give a race-neutral reason if challenged.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No strike based on skin — fairness must begin within.”

6th Amendment: What does it mean to have the right to be informed of the accusation?

The 6th Amendment guarantees that the accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
This ensures they can prepare an adequate defense, fulfilling the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Key protections include:

• Notice of charges at arraignment

• Copy of complaint or indictment

• Details such as date, time, location

• Victim’s name or partial identity

• Enough time and clarity to respond effectively in court

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No defense without the offense.”

Pointer v. Texas (1965)

The Confrontation Clause gives the accused the right to face and cross-examine all witnesses testifying against them.

In this case:

• A man was accused of robbery.

• The victim testified at a preliminary hearing, but the defendant had no lawyer.

• At trial, the victim had moved away, so the prosecution used the prior transcript instead of live testimony.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, citing:

1. No attorney present during the earlier hearing

2. No opportunity to confront the witness at trial

This right was held to apply to state courts through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“If I can't see them, I can't beat them.”

How does the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause apply to hearsay evidence?

he Confrontation Clause guarantees the right to cross-examine all witnesses who testify against the defendant.

⚖ Hearsay = An out-of-court statement offered for the truth of what it asserts.
Example: “Yesterday, Mary told me she saw the suspect in a green shirt.”

🛑 General Rule: Hearsay is not admissible because the defendant can't cross-examine the person who actually made the statement.
This would violate the 6th Amendment unless an exception applies.

✅ Admissibility requires either:

• The declarant testifies and can be cross-examined, or

• The statement falls under a recognized hearsay exception and meets confrontation standards.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No face, no cross, no trial boss.”

Coy v. Iowa (1988)

A defendant was charged with sexually assaulting two 13-year-old girls.
Under Iowa law, a screen was placed between the victims and the defendant during testimony — he could dimly see them and hear them, but they couldn't directly see him.

The Supreme Court held this violated the 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause.
The right to confront includes seeing the witness’s face and expressions, which helps ensure truthful testimony.
Face-to-face presence may influence honesty and help jurors assess credibility.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“You lie less when you face who you accuse.”

Washington v. Texas (1967)

A man charged with murder tried to call his co-defendant as a defense witness, but Texas law prohibited it, assuming co-defendants would lie for each other.

The Supreme Court held that this violated the 6th Amendment, which guarantees the right to compulsory process — the ability to call witnesses in your favor.
This right was made binding on the states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“You can’t block my witness — I have a right to call defense.”

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Seven White House officials were indicted in the Watergate scandal.
The Court ordered the President to turn over audio recordings related to the investigation.
Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege and separation of powers.

The Supreme Court held that the President is not above the law, and must comply with court orders.
The 6th Amendment right to a fair trial and access to evidence outweighs generalized claims of privilege.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Even the President must play fair — the truth matters more than power.”

Johnson v. Zerbst (1938)

A man was convicted in federal court for counterfeiting — without an attorney.
He appealed, arguing his 6th Amendment right to counsel was violated.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that in federal felony cases, a defendant must be given an attorney unless the right is knowingly and voluntarily waived.

This ruling ensured that life and liberty can't be taken without legal representation in federal courts.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No lawyer, no liberty — unless you say so.”

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Nine young Black men were accused of raping two white women.
They were given court-appointed lawyers, but the attorneys had little contact, showed up right before trial, and were unprepared.
The trial lasted one day, ending in convictions and death sentences.

The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, ruling that this violated the right to counsel as part of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.
Effective legal representation is essential to a fair trial, especially in capital cases.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“A lawyer in name only is no lawyer at all.”

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

A poor, uneducated man was charged with burglary in Florida.
He asked for a lawyer but was denied because it was not a capital case.
He was tried without counsel, convicted, and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the 6th Amendment right to counsel applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
States must provide a court-appointed attorney in all felony cases, ensuring a fair battle between the government and the accused.

📌 At retrial, with a lawyer, he was acquitted.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No lawyer, no level field.”

Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)

A man in Florida was charged with a misdemeanor (carrying a concealed weapon) and faced a maximum of 6 months in jail.
He was convicted and sentenced to 90 days — without a lawyer.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that under the 6th Amendment, no one can be jailed without the assistance of counsel.
This right applies to states via the 14th Amendment.
✅ If jail time is a possibility, you must be given an attorney if you cannot afford one — even for misdemeanors.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“If it risks time, you get a lawyer — every time.”

What are the three protections guaranteed by the 8th Amendment?

The 8th Amendment provides protections against:

1. Excessive Bail – Ensures the bail system is fair and not used to punish before trial

2. Excessive Fines – Prevents the government from imposing disproportionate financial penalties

3. Cruel and Unusual Punishment – Forbids inhumane, degrading, or barbaric punishments

📜 The language was inspired by the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) and reflects early American values.
🏛 Influenced by Puritan legal traditions from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which rejected brutal punishments like whipping, burning, limb removal, and stoning.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Bail, Fine, Spine.”

What does the 8th Amendment say about bail and fines, and when can bail be denied?

The 8th Amendment prohibits excessive bail and excessive fines to ensure fair pretrial treatment and prevent abuse of power.

🔓 Bail allows the accused to be released before trial by posting money or bond as a promise to return to court.
💸 Failure to appear = forfeit bail or collateral.

🚫 Bail can be denied in certain cases:

• Capital offenses

• Violent crimes

• If the defendant threatens witnesses

• If the defendant is a flight risk

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Bail isn’t a punishment — it’s a promise.”

What is the purpose of bail, and what does the Bail Reform Act of 1984 allow?

🔐 Bail is based on the presumption of innocence — it allows the accused to remain free before trial.
💰 The amount must be reasonable and aimed at ensuring the defendant returns to court, not punishing them.
➡ A defendant can also buy a bond for a lower upfront cost.

📜 Bail Reform Act of 1984:

• Created guidelines for setting bail based on the offense

• Allowed judges to deny bail if the defendant poses a danger to the community, not just a flight risk

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Bail holds you, not hurts you.”

United States v. Salerno (1987)

Mr. Salerno was arrested on racketeering charges and detained without bail under the Bail Reform Act of 1984, which allows pre-trial detention if the defendant is considered a danger to the community.

The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling it did not violate the 8th Amendment.
📌 Preventive detention is constitutional if it serves a compelling government interest — like public safety — and includes procedural safeguards (e.g., hearings, evidence).

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Danger beats dollars.”

In re Humphrey (2021)

A 63-year-old man was charged with robbery and burglary, and bail was set at $350,000.
The prosecution claimed he was a flight risk and public danger, but the defense argued that the court ignored his inability to pay.

The California Supreme Court ruled this violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and California Constitution.
📌 Courts must consider the defendant’s ability to pay and use less restrictive alternatives (e.g., GPS, check-ins) when setting bail.
⚖ Pretrial detention resulting from unaffordable bail = detention without legal process.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Can’t pay? Can’t stay — without real review.”

Austin v. United States (1993)

A man convicted of selling cocaine had his mobile home and auto-body shop seized by the government through civil forfeiture.

The Supreme Court ruled this violated the 8th Amendment Excessive Fines Clause, holding:

• There must be a clear connection (nexus) between the property and the crime

• Even if labeled “civil,” forfeiture is still punishment and must be proportional

• Excessive fines cannot be used to punish beyond the crime’s severity

📌 Though initially not incorporated to states, this case laid the foundation for applying the clause to federal actions.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“If the fine feels like prison in disguise, it’s too much.”

Troy v. Dulles (1958)

A U.S. soldier went AWOL in Morocco and was dishonorably discharged.
A federal law allowed the government to strip his citizenship as punishment for military desertion.

The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, holding that:

• Revoking citizenship is a form of cruel and unusual punishment

• The 8th Amendment must be interpreted by the “evolving standards of decency” in a maturing society

• Punishment must respect human dignity — denationalization was too severe

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No crime should exile your identity.”

Robinson v. California (1962)

A California law made it a crime to be addicted to narcotics.
Robinson was stopped by police, who saw track marks, and he was convicted and sentenced to 90 days in jail — just for being addicted, not for using or possessing drugs.

The Supreme Court held this violated the 8th Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.
📌 Addiction is a medical condition, like an illness — not an act.
📌 The government cannot punish a person’s status (e.g., being sick or addicted) — only their conduct.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“You can punish actions, not afflictions.”

Rummel v. Estelle (1980)

A man was sentenced to life in prison (with parole eligibility) under Texas’s three-strikes law.
His convictions involved fraudulent checks totaling $289.

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence, holding:

• The punishment did not violate the 8th Amendment

• States have discretion to punish repeat offenders (recidivists)

• The availability of parole helped justify the severity

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Strike three means you sit — even for small hits.”

Solem v. Helm (1983)

A man in South Dakota was convicted of passing a $100 bad check.
He had six prior non-violent felonies and was sentenced to life without parole.

The Supreme Court struck down the sentence, holding it violated the 8th Amendment.
It established the Proportionality Test for punishment:

1. Gravity of the offense vs. harshness of penalty

2. Compare with punishments in other jurisdictions for the same crime

3. Compare with punishments within the same state for more serious crimes

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Fair time fits the crime.”

Lockyer v. Andrade (2003)

Under California’s Three Strikes Law, a person with two prior serious or violent felonies faces 25 years to life for a third felony.

Andrade had two prior convictions, then stole five children’s videos from Kmart, worth about $150 total.
He was sentenced to 50 years to life for petty theft under the 3-strikes enhancement.

The Supreme Court upheld the sentence, holding it did not violate the 8th Amendment.

• Applied the “grossly disproportionate” standard

• Emphasized deference to state sentencing laws

• Confirmed states can impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Three strikes, harsh pitch — still not cruel unless it's wildly off.”

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Furman was convicted of murder during a burglary. The jury imposed the death penalty, with no guidelines.
The Court ruled that the death penalty, as applied, violated the 8th Amendment.

Reason:

• Sentences were arbitrary, inconsistent, and often racially biased

• It was imposed in a “wanton and freakish” manner

• There were no clear standards for judges or juries

The Court did not ban the death penalty outright, but required reforms to avoid capricious sentencing.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Death by dice roll = unconstitutional.”

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Gregg was convicted of robbery and double murder. Georgia passed a new law requiring:

• Bifurcated trials:

  1. Guilt phase

  2. Sentencing phase

• Consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors

The Court upheld the death penalty, holding it is not per se cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment, if guided by proper procedures.

🪓 Reasons:

• Death penalty serves deterrence

• Also supports retribution (moral justice)

• 35 states and Congress reformed laws post-Furman to meet fairness standards

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Death with rules ≠ death with cruelty.”

Coker v. Georgia (1977)

A man convicted of raping an adult woman was sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty for rape is unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment.

🧑‍⚖ Rationale:

• Grossly disproportionate punishment for a non-homicide offense

• Punishment must be proportional to the severity of the crime

• By 1977, only Georgia still imposed death for rape after Furman

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No death for the crime if no life was lost.”

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2009)

A man was sentenced to death for the rape of a child (non-homicide).
The Supreme Court extended the Coker ruling, holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional for child rape.

🧑‍⚖ Rationale:

• Still a non-homicide crime

• Only 5 states used this punishment — lacked national consensus

• Death penalty is cruel and unusual unless the crime involves loss of life

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Death penalty only for death — not even horrific harm.”

Enmund v. Florida (1982)

Enmund was the getaway driver while two co-defendants robbed and killed an elderly couple.
He was sentenced to death, even though he did not kill, try to kill, or intend to kill.

The Supreme Court applied the proportionality test and held this was a violation of the 8th Amendment, incorporated through the 14th Amendment.
Minimal involvement in a crime does not justify the death penalty.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No intent, no death.”

Tison v. Arizona (1987)

Three brothers helped their father escape from prison by smuggling in guns.
While on the run, they watched as a family was murdered by their father and an accomplice.
They were major participants and armed the killers.

The Supreme Court held that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual if the suspect:

• Was a major participant in the felony, and

• Acted with reckless indifference to human life

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Help the killers, risk the chair.”

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

The Court ruled that executing individuals with intellectual disabilities is cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment.
They have reduced culpability, impaired reasoning, and are less likely to deter crime.
The decision was based on "evolving standards of decency."

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Limited mind, limited blame.”

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

The Court held that executing someone for a crime committed under the age of 18 is cruel and unusual under the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Minors are less mature, more impulsive, and more capable of change.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Under 18? No execution scene.”

Graham v. Florida (2010)

A juvenile was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) for a non-homicide crime.
The Court ruled this violated the 8th Amendment — youth must be given a chance to rehabilitate and rejoin society.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Kids deserve a second look, not a sealed cell.”

Can a mentally insane person be executed under the 8th Amendment?

The 8th Amendment prohibits executing someone who is legally insane — meaning they do not understand the reason for their punishment or that they are going to be executed.

This rule protects basic human dignity and aligns with “evolving standards of decency.”

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No awareness = no execution.”

What are key statistics and concerns about the death penalty in the U.S. as of 2023?

📊 Death Row Population:

• 2,262 people on death row in the U.S.

• 49 are women

• 40 federal death row inmates

• 638 in California — highest of any state

📉 Racial Disparities:

• 42% are White (but 58% of U.S. population)

• 41% are African American (only 14.4% of U.S. population)

⚠ Wrongful Convictions:

• At least 187 people sentenced to death have been exonerated

These stats raise concerns about racial bias, fairness, and the irreversibility of capital punishment.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Too many waiting, too many wrong — the system needs to right what’s gone on too long.”

Palko v. Connecticut (1937)

Selective incorporation is the process where the Supreme Court gradually applied the Bill of Rights to the states, using the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause — one right and one case at a time.

In Palko, a man was convicted of 2nd-degree murder, retried, then convicted of 1st-degree murder and executed.
He argued double jeopardy from the 5th Amendment should protect him.

The Court ruled that double jeopardy was not a "fundamental" right and did not apply to the states at that time.

⚠ This was later overruled by Benton v. Maryland (1969), which held that double jeopardy does apply to the states.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Only the vital rights survive the state line—until the Court says otherwise.”

What is incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and which rights have not been applied to the states?

Incorporation refers to the process of applying the Bill of Rights to state governments through the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

🔍 Debates among Justices:

1. Total Incorporation:

   • All rights in the first 10 Amendments are fundamental to liberty

   • Apply them to the states all at once

2. Selective Incorporation (prevails):

   • Apply one right at a time, case-by-case

   • Avoids disrupting federalism

   • Gives states more legal flexibility

🚫 Rights not incorporated into the 14th Amendment:

• 3rd Amendment – Quartering of troops

• 5th Amendment – Right to Grand Jury Indictment

• 6th Amendment – Right to a 12-person jury

• 6th/State Rule – Unanimous verdicts only recently required (Ramos v. Louisiana, 2020)

• 8th Amendment – Protection from excessive fines was not incorporated until Timbs v. Indiana (2019)

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Incorporation is selective, not automatic — liberty comes case by case.”

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

A Nebraska law banned teaching foreign languages in schools, passed during WWI amid anti-German sentiment.
Meyer, a teacher, was fined $25 for teaching German.

The Supreme Court held the law violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause by infringing on individual liberty, including the right to learn and teach languages.
This case recognized that liberty includes personal and cultural freedoms, not just protection from unfair procedures.

✅ This is an example of Substantive Due Process — protecting the content of fundamental rights, not just the process.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Liberty isn’t just a process — it’s what you’re free to do.”

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

A Connecticut law banned contraceptive use by married couples.
A reproductive health clinic challenged the law.

The Supreme Court held the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, which protects “liberty” interests.
The Court recognized a right to marital privacy, especially in intimate decisions, even though privacy isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

📜 Privacy was found in the “penumbras” (shadows) of several amendments (1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th).
🛑 The ruling emphasized: “The government must stay out of the bedroom.”

🧠 Memory Trick:
“No cops, no court, in your contraceptive choice.”

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

A Georgia law criminalized sodomy, even between consenting adults in private.
Police entered Hardwick’s bedroom (via an invalid warrant) and arrested him for a private, consensual homosexual act.

The Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling that the Constitution does not protect a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.
This decision narrowly interpreted the right to privacy, denying protection for same-sex intimacy.

⚠ Later Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (2003).

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Bowers said no to bedroom rights — but the Court later turned on the light.”

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Texas law criminalized private sexual intimacy between same-sex couples.
Police entered Lawrence’s home (responding to a false report) and found him and Garner engaged in consensual acts. They were arrested and fined.

The Supreme Court invalidated the law, holding that it violated the liberty interest protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

✅ Recognized that private, adult, consensual intimacy is part of individual liberty
✅ Overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
✅ Found that the Constitution protects the right to privacy in intimate relationships
✅ Struck down similar laws in 13 other states

🧠 Memory Trick:
“From Bowers to liberty — privacy wins in 2003.”

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey) challenged a Texas law banning abortion, claiming it violated her constitutional rights.
She sued District Attorney Wade in her county.

The Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects a fundamental right to privacy, which includes a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

⚖ The Court set trimester guidelines:

• 1st Trimester – No state interference

• 2nd Trimester – State may regulate for maternal health

• 3rd Trimester – State may restrict or ban abortions (with exceptions)

✅ Established abortion as a constitutional right grounded in substantive due process

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Roe rode privacy through three trimesters.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

A state law required a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, and spousal notification before an abortion.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right to abortion under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause, but replaced the trimester framework.

📍 Introduced the “Undue Burden” Test:
Regulations are allowed unless they place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.

✅ Waiting period and parental consent were upheld
❌ Spousal notification was struck down

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Kept the right, changed the fight.”

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)

A state passed laws requiring:

• Abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles

• Clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards

The Supreme Court struck down both requirements as unconstitutional, ruling they imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

The Court found no medical benefit and significant reduction in clinic access, making it harder for women to obtain care.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Health laws with no help = undue burden.”

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org. (2022)

A state law banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The state’s only abortion clinic challenged the law.

The ruling found:

• The Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion

• Abortion is not a fundamental liberty interest

• The right is not deeply rooted in the nation’s history or tradition

Overturned previous abortion rights decisions.
States can now ban or restrict abortion if laws are rationally related to a legitimate interest.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Dobbs dropped Roe.”

Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment): How does the government evaluate discrimination in law?

The clause prohibits state governments from denying people equal protection under the law.
The federal government uses the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause to prevent discrimination.

Two levels of review:

1. Rational Basis Test
   Used for laws affecting general groups (e.g., age, income)
   ✅ Law must be reasonably related to a legitimate government interest

2. Strict Scrutiny Test
   Used for laws affecting protected classes (e.g., race, religion, national origin)
   ✅ Law must serve a compelling government interest
   ✅ Must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Rational for regular, strict for special.”

What happens when a law affects a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause?

Laws that treat protected classes differently are reviewed under the Strict Scrutiny Test:

✅ Must serve a compelling government interest
✅ Must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest

Protected Classes include:

• Race

• Sex

• Gender

• Sexual Orientation

• Alienage (legal status)

• Age

• Poverty

Laws that fail this test are usually struck down.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Strict scrutiny protects the few from unfair view.”

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

A law required racial segregation in train cars. A man challenged it after being arrested for sitting in a “whites only” section.

The ruling upheld segregation laws, stating that “separate but equal” facilities did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
This allowed racial segregation to continue if the facilities were “equal.”

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Plessy permitted partition.”

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

A Black student was denied admission to a nearby white school and forced to attend a faraway segregated school.

The ruling found that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal in the context of public education.
Segregation created a sense of inferiority and violated the Equal Protection Clause.

🧠 Memory Trick:
“Brown broke the barrier.”

Bill of Rights(BOR)

The first ten amendments to the Constitution were established to protect minority rights against the tyranny of majority rule, effectively limiting government authority.

Madison emphasized that the Constitution aims to safeguard minorities from being harmed by the majority.

The Bill of Rights is essential in constraining the federal government, functioning like 'federal in handcuffs'.

14th Amendment- BOR- Applicable to States

extends the Bill of Rights to states, guaranteeing equal protection under the law (ratified in 1868). It emphasizes that rights are not unlimited; while states can expand rights, they cannot impose restrictions, except in specific cases (e.g., threats of violence).

Constitutional Interpretation: Living Document

The Constitution is viewed as a living, breathing document that evolves with societal changes and perspectives over time. This interpretation entails going beyond the literal text to understand broader implications and meanings, acknowledging that societal norms can shift, which may necessitate updates in interpretation.

Constitutional Interpretation: Strict Constructionism

This approach emphasizes a strict reading of the Constitution, focusing on its original meaning as understood by the framers, often referred to as 'Originalist.' It involves literal interpretations and an adherence to the plain meaning of the text, informed

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

- Landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of Judicial Review.

• Presided over by Justice John Marshall.

• Significant for asserting the Court's authority to interpret the Constitution and nullify unconstitutional laws.

• Arisen from a political conflict between outgoing President John Adams (Federalist) and incoming President Thomas Jefferson (Anti-Federalist).

• Adams appointed William as a justice of the peace before leaving office.

• Jefferson's Secretary of State, James , refused to deliver X person commission.

• X petitioned for a Writ of Mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789.

• The Court ruled that the relevant provision of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional, limiting judicial power and reaffirming the Court's constitutional role.\

  • Reference: Justice league and We are Marshall

Eakin v Raub (1825)

n important case showcasing the pushback against Judicial Review. This case involved the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's authority to invalidate a state law related to land rights for a plaintiff living overseas. The dissenting opinion from Justice Gibson expressed discontent with Justice Marshall's precedent, arguing that the three branches of government should be co-equal and emphatically declared: Stay in your lane! The plaintiff, who lived abroad, sued local defendants over land ownership in the U.S., but the lower court favored the defendants by citing a new statute of limitations that barred the plaintiff from suing, resulting in the loss of land and legal rights. The Pennsylvania court later deemed this new law unconstitutional, referencing the pivotal Marbury v. Madison case, which mandates that courts must invalidate any law that conflicts with the Constitution. Gibson's dissent asserted that one branch of government should not have the power to invalidate legislation from another.

Basically remember this case is Stay in you damn lane!!!

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

1. Article III

   • Specifically referenced in the Marbury v. Madison case.

   • Original Jurisdiction:

     • Encompasses all cases involving the Constitution and U.S. laws.

   • Cases involving disputes between states or between states and the federal government.

2. Congressional Legislation

   • Established lower courts and defined Appellate Jurisdiction.

   • Outlines the process to petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

   • Authority derived from Article III.

3. Interpretation of Article III and Legislation

   • Judicial interpretation and application of the jurisdiction defined in Article III.

   • Litigants in cases must be real and hold adverse positions against one another, prohibiting advisory opinions and hypothetical questions.

Requirements for Standing in SC Cases

several criteria must be met:

1. Right Violated: There must be a violation of a legal right.

2. Injury Sustained: The party must demonstrate actual damage, which may involve personal harm or issues related to property. This may also consider broader public interests.

3. Issue Ripe: The issue presented must be sufficiently developed for court consideration.

Flast v Cohen(1968)-

A landmark Supreme Court case that determined the criteria for taxpayers to have standing in federal court cases, specifically regarding the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The ruling allowed taxpayers to challenge government expenditures as unconstitutional if they could show a direct link to the establishment of religion.

Flast v Cohen- 2 Prong Test

1. Taxpayer must demonstrate a relationship to the law:

   1. Plaintiffs should show they are paying taxes and challenging Article I - Spending.

2. Show how the law exceeds constitutional limits:

   • Example: Tax money used for religious supplies and books potentially violates the 1st Amendment.

3. Allows taxpayers to challenge public spending:

4. Claims can be for personal or public injury:

   • Example: In US v. Student Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (1973), law students (SCRAP) contested a tax on freight, arguing it discouraged recycling and harmed the environment, acting as a surrogate for special interest groups

Issues that Affect Standing

1. A case is MOOT when the issue has already been resolved.

   1. Defunis v. Odegaard (1974): A Washington law student challenged the admission process based on affirmative action. By the time the case progressed, he was accepted and about to graduate, rendering the case moot.

2. Case need to be RIPE

   1. Not brought too early

   2. No harm has yet occurred

3. Exhaust all state appeals before federal review to ensure a final judgment.

Elk Grove Unified District v. Newdow (2004)

A Supreme Court case that addressed whether a father could sue on behalf of his daughter to challenge the constitutionality of the "Under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, ultimately ruling that he lacked standing.

Barron v. Baltimore (1883)

In this case, X owned a profitable wharf that was damaged due to city improvements. He sued under the Eminent Domain Doctrine seeking compensation for the taking of his property, as he suffered financial losses due to the damage of the wharf. The Supreme Court held that the 5th Amendment only applied to the Federal Government, stating that the Bill of Rights applied solely to the National Government according to Justice

1st Amendment Rights

The 1st Amendment is interpreted to protect key rights:

• Freedom of Association: Ensures individuals can gather and form groups, shielding minorities from majority oppression.

• Freedom of Religion: Protects the practice of unpopular faiths, rooted in the historical context of religious persecution faced by colonists in England and similar issues elsewhere.

• Right to Free Speech, Free Press, and Assembly: Recognized as essential for an informed citizenry, these rights promote knowledge dissemination, the exchange of ideas, and peaceful protests. They foster discussions and debates, vital to a healthy democracy, while acknowledging the presence of limitations on all constitutional rights.

Nationalization or Selective Incorporation

The Supreme Court had to determine which rights from the Bill of Rights (BOR) would apply to the States through the 14th Amendment, facing no consensus on which rights were fundamental.

Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

Louisiana created a corporation to manage slaughterhouses, leading owners to sue under the 14th Amendment, claiming their rights were violated. The Supreme Court broadly interpreted the 14th Amendment to protect citizens from state violations of Federal Rights, not state rights.

Hurtado v CA (1884)

In a murder case, X was convicted with an information rather than an indictment, arguing this violated the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that this part of the 5th did not apply to the States, stating there is no fundamental right to an indictment in state courts, with a dissent advocating for full incorporation of the BOR.

Gilbert v Minnesota (1920)

A state law prohibited discouraging enlistment. Mr. X spoke against the WW1 draft, leading to his arrest. The Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech applies to the states but upheld his conviction, noting it wasn't a policy change or censoring action.

Powell v Alabama (1932)

Nine teenagers were charged with rape but did not have legal representation, receiving lawyers only on trial day. The Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause incorporates the right to an attorney based on the 6th