Upgrade to remove ads
Chapter 10 Case Law
Terms in this set (33)
Mcnabb v. U.S. (1943)
Established that any unreasonable delay in an initial court appearance would make confessions inadmissible if interrogating officers obtained them during the delay. 48 hours became the standard.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991)
The U.S. Supreme Court imposed a promptness requirement on probable cause determinations for in-custody arrestees.
U.S. v. Montalvo-Murillo (1990)
Unless it has substantial influence on the outcome of the proceeedings, failure to comply with the Act's prompt hearing provision does not require release of a person who should otherwise be detained because automatic release contravenes the statutory purpose of providing fail bail procedures while protecting the publics safety and assuring a defendant's appearance at trial.
U.S. v. Hazzard (1984)
Held that Congress was justified in providing for denial of bail to offenders who represent a danger to the community.
Sell v. U.S. (2003)
Ruled that the use of antipsychotic drugs on a nonviolent pretrial defendant who does not represent a danger while institutionalized must be in the defendant's best medical interest and must be "substantially unlikely" to cause side effets that might compromise the fairness of the trial.
Henderson v. Morgan (1976)
After a guilty plea has been entered, it may be withdrawn with the consent of the court. The U.S. Supreme Court permitted a defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty nine years after it had been given.
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
Right to a speedy trial is a fundamental guarantee of the Constitution.
Barker v. Wingo (1972)
Held that Sixth Amendment guarantees to a quick trial could be illegally violated even in cases where the accused did not explicitly object to delays.
Strunk v. U.S. (1973)
The denial of a speedy trial should result in the dismissal of all charges.
U.S. v. Taylor (1988)
Trial delays that derive from the willful actions of the defendant do not apply to the 70-day period.
Fex v. Michigan (1993)
Common sense compels the conclusion that the 180-day period does not commence until the prisoner's disposition request has actually been delivered to the court and prosecutor of the jurisdiction that lodged the detainer against him.
Doggett v. U.S. (1992)
The Court held that a delay of eight and a half years violated speedy trial provisions because it resulted from government negligence.
Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968)
The Court ruled that a juror opposed to the death penalty could be excluded from such juries if it were shown that 1) the juror would automatically vote against conviction without regard to the evidence or 2) the juror's philosophical orientation would prevent an objective consideration of the evidence.
Mu'Min v. Virginia (1991)
The Court ruled that the defendant's right to a fair trial had not been violated due to pretrial publicity and upheld his conviction.
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
The Court agreed that the use of peremptory challenges for purposeful discrimination constitutes a violation of the defandant's right to an impartial jury.
Ford v. Georgia (1991)
The Court determined that the civil rights of the jurors themselves had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment due to a pattern of discrimination based on race.
Powers v. Ohio (1991)
The Court held that a;though an individual juror does not have the right to sit on any particular petit jury, he or she does possess the right not to be excluded from one on account of race.
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991)
The Court held that peremptory challenges in civil suits were not acceptable based on race.
Georgia v. McCollum (1992)
The Court barred criminal defendants and their attorneys from using peremptory challenges to exclude protential jurors on the basis of race.
J.E.B. v. Alabama (1994)
Peremptory challenges based on gender were similarly restricted although not banned.
Campbell v. Louisiana (1998)
The Court held that a white criminal defendant can raise equal protection and due process objections to discrimination against blacks in the selection of grand jurors.
Miller-El v. Cockrell (2003)
The Court found taht a convicted capital defendant's constitutional rights had been vilated by Dallas County, Texas, prosecutors who engaged in intentional efforts to remove eligible blacks from the pool of potential jurors.
Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)
Reaffirmed Miller-El v. Cockrell by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Michigan v. Lucas (1991)
U.S. Supreme Court strengthened rape shield statutes.
Griffin v. California (1965)
The U.S. Supreme Court declared that if a defendant refuses to testify, prosecutors and judges are enjoined from even commenting on this fact, although the judge should instruct the jury that such a failure cannot be held to indicate guilt.
Ohio v. Reiner (2001)
The U.S. Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to witnesses who deny any and all guilt in association with a crime for which another person is being prosecuted.
Coy v. Iowa (1988)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a courtroom screen, used to shield child witnesses from visual confrontation with a defendant in a child sex-abuse case, had violated the confrontation clause of the Constitution (found in the Sixth Amendment).
Maryland v. Craig (1990)
The Court upheld the use of closed-circuit television to shield children who testify in criminal courts.
Idaho v. Wright (1990)
The Court reasoned that such "statements are fraught with the dangers of unreliability which the Confrontation Clause is designed to highlight and obviate.
White v. Illinois (1992)
The Court reversed its stance, ruling that in-court testimony provided by a medical provider and the child's baby-sitter, which repeated what the child had said to them concerning White's sexually abusive behavior, was permissible.
Crawford v. Washington (2004)
The Court disallowed a woman's tape-recorded eyewitness account of a fight in which her husband stabbed another man, holding that the Constitution bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unable to testify and the defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Davis v. Washington (2006)
The Court held that a 9-1-1 call made by a woman who said that her former boyfriend was beating her had been improperly introduced as testimonial evidence. The court indicated that staements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency.
Allen v. U.S. (1896)
This charge urges the jury to vigorous deliberations and suggests to obstinate jurors that their objections may be ill founded if they make no impression on the other jurors.
THIS SET IS OFTEN IN FOLDERS WITH...
Criminal Justice Chapter 7
Chapter 8: The Courtroom Work Group and the Crimin…
Chapter 13 Juvenile Justice System
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Juvenile Justice in America Court Cases
Legal Courts. Juvenile Courts
Juvenile Ch. 14
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Chapter 6 Vocab
Chapter 4 Vocab
Chapter 3 Vocab
Chapter 2 Vocab