Key Cases in US Supreme Court: Religion, Privacy & Criminal Procedure, Quizzes of Political Science

Download Key Cases in US Supreme Court: Religion, Privacy & Criminal Procedure and more Quizzes Political Science in PDF only on Docsity!

Reynolds v

U.S.

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.Government can regulate certain things like polygamyReligion viewed narrowly after this, morally sound and civilized TERM 2

Ballard v

U.S.

DEFINITION 2 Sincerityof how a person holds their views is the test for religion no matter how that is viewed. TERM 3

U.S. v

Seeger

DEFINITION 3 is the general "religious belief" reason applicable under federal law?USSC said yes statute of draft act said supreme being which was broad enough to cover Seeger's beliefs. TERM 4

Cantwell v

Conn

DEFINITION 4 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), was a United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated or applied to the states, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment's protection of religious free exercise.is a state law prohibiting door to door a violation of the free establishment clause?USSC- yes states need to create a valid secular purpose TERM 5

Gobitis

DEFINITION 5 USSC upheld state law that made notsalutingthe flag basis for schoolexpulsioneven though it discriminates against jeviohal witnesses.

West Virginia Board of Ed v

Barnette

is a decision by theSupreme Court of the United Statesthat held that theFree Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitutionprotected students from being forced to salute theAmerican flagand say thePledge of Allegiancein school. TERM 7

Sherbert v

Verner

DEFINITION 7 Sherbert v. Verner, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required that government demonstrate a compelling government interest before denying unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because their job conflicted with their religion. TERM 8

Wisconsin v

Yoder

DEFINITION 8 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. No compelling government interest. TERM 9

Employment division v

Smith

DEFINITION 9 Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that 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. TERM 10

Solid

Wall

DEFINITION 10 Prohibits most if not all forms of public aid for religion. Forbids state from supporting one religion over another, secular support OK. Argued that framerspreferredtwo or three. Court goes between 1 and 2. Many issues deal with public funds for public institutions.

Everson v Board of

Education

Via a NJ law that forces schools to provide transportation or reimburse parents if no transportationavailable to public and private schoolsa violation of the free exercise clause?USSC said no it has a secular purpose reimbursement went to parents not school. TERM 12

Bradfield v

Roberts

DEFINITION 12 Is providing funds to a hospital run by nuns a violation of the free establishment clauseUSSC said no, purpose was secular and did not promote religion TERM 13

Abington School District v

Schampp

DEFINITION 13 rejected prayer in school TERM 14

Epperson v

Arkansas

DEFINITION 14 teaching of creationism instead of evolution rejected TERM 15

Lemon v

Kurtzman

DEFINITION 15 Struck down PA policy that allowed public funding of teacher salaries in parochial schools as government entanglement

Lemon test

policy must have secular legislative purposepolicy neither promotes nor inhibits religiondoes not foster extensive governmententanglement TERM 17

Roemer v Maryland Public Works

Board

DEFINITION 17 Teacher salaries and materials to private school students in public school facilities struck down TERM 18

Aguilar v

Felton

DEFINITION 18 Special ed taught in parochial schools upheld TERM 19

Agostini v

Belton

DEFINITION 19 Vouchersto attend public, private or parochial schools upheld TERM 20

Zelman v Simmons-

Harris

DEFINITION 20 Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which tested the allowance of school vouchers in relation to the establishment clause of the First Amendment.Public school sucked, providedvouchersto attend private.

Edwards v

Aguillard

was a legal case about the teaching ofcreationismthat was heard by theSupreme Court of the United Statesin 1987. The Court ruled that aLouisianalaw requiring thatcreation sciencebe taught in public schools, along withevolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." TERM 22

Lynch v. Donnelly

DEFINITION 22 Lynch v. Donnelly, , was a United States Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Christmas decorations on town property.USSC said no this was not a problem, various secular religious symbols were included TERM 23

Court of Allegheny v

Acku

DEFINITION 23 Court ruled that aNativityscene was a violation but the tree and menorah were okay. TERM 24

Vanorden v

Perry

DEFINITION 24 Is displaying the tencommandmentsat theTexascapital a violation of the establishment clause. USSC said no it was displayed with otherhistoricmonuments. TERM 25

CJ powers

DEFINITION 25 four found in the constitutionEx post factoHabeous Corpustrial by jurybin of attainder

Olmstead v

U.S.

Olmstead v. United States, , was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used as evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant-s rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. USSC said no only a violation of the 4th in places police enter TERM 27

Katz v

U.S.

DEFINITION 27 Katz v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search." The Court-s ruling adjusted previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial intrusion with technology as a search, overruling Olmstead v.U.S.4th protects people not places. protects when a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. TERM 28

Warrantless searches

DEFINITION 28 incident to legal arrestconsent searchesvehicle searchesplain viewexigent circumstancesstop and frisk-based on RS not PC TERM 29

Terry v

Ohio

DEFINITION 29 with reasonable suspicion you can stop and frisk a person for weapons TERM 30

Minnesota v

Dickerson

DEFINITION 30 can get contraband if immediately apparent

Profiling

may detain certain people if fit a certain profile must be specific enough so as not to detain all individuals of a particular group, race, gender TERM 32

U.S. v

Leon

DEFINITION 32 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), was a search and seizure case in which the Supreme Court of the United States created the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.tip from unproven informant. TERM 33

Massachusetts v

Sheppard

DEFINITION 33 defective search warrant due to the form officers were acted in good faith despite that so evidence allowed TERM 34

Nix v

Williams

DEFINITION 34 inevitable discovery, legal police work would have found body so coersion was ruled okay. TERM 35

Tennessee v

Garner

DEFINITION 35 minimal amount of force needed to control situation.Danger to othersDanger to you

Escobedo v

Illinois

Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the fifth Amendment. TERM 37

Miranda v

Arizona

DEFINITION 37 Miranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which passed 5-4. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. Exceptions, public safety, vehiclesearch, stop and frisk TERM 38

Powell v

Alabama

DEFINITION 38 if defendant could be deprived of liberty, must have counsel TERM 39

Johnson v

Zerbst

DEFINITION 39 def in fed courts have right to counsel TERM 40

Betts v

Brady

DEFINITION 40 Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that denied counsel to indigent defendants when prosecuted by a state.

Gideon v

Wainwright

Gideon v. Wainwright, , is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford to pay their own attorneys, extending the identical requirement made on the federal government under the Sixth Amendment. TERM 42

Trial by Jury

DEFINITION 42 Thought to be trial of peers but really cross selection of community, found in article III the 6th and 7th amendment. May not be possible due toexclusionof certain groups from jury duty, convicted felons, those notregisteredto vote. Must commit serious offense, where you face 6 months are more incarnation. NC allows for de novo - lower court bench trial automatic appeal to superior court trial by jury TERM 43

Jury

DEFINITION 43 typically felony and capital are 12 people with unanimous decision required.Misdemeanortrails are 6 person with unanimous (NC has 12) TERM 44

Jury Selection

DEFINITION 44 Three issues, publicity, race, gender.Publicity, gag order, change of venure, change of jury pool, sequestration.Race- discrimination seen a lot Batson v KYGender- not as pervasive as race but still an issue J.E.B. vAlabama TERM 45

Batson v

KY

DEFINITION 45 Black man on trial for burgulary, peremptory- can excuse a certain amount of times without reason. All blacks excused. USSC said this was illegal but defendant has to prove that this was done intentionally from now on.

J.E.B. v

Alabama

USSC said using peremptory to dismiss everyone of the same gender, in this case women was illegal. TERM 47

Double Jeopardy

DEFINITION 47 cannot try someone for the same offense in the same jursisdiction. Includes lesser offenses, 2nd degree etc.or give multiple punishments for same offense, does not include civil lawsuit after trial, or post release control or parole or split sentencing, civil commitment. A different state CAN try you so can the fed after state case and vise versa TERM 48

Death penalty

DEFINITION 48 murder and felony mudertreasondrug kingpins TERM 49

Coker v

GA

DEFINITION 49 DP for rape illegal TERM 50

Atkins v

Virginia

DEFINITION 50 dp for mentally retarded illegal

Roper v

Simmons

DP for juveniles illegal TERM 52

Forman v

GA

DEFINITION 52 unguided jury decision making regarding dp a violation of the 8th?USSC said yes communted all dp sentences suspendedexecutionstold states to fix laws. USSC would look over each states after they fixed them TERM 53

Gregg v

GA

DEFINITION 53 are GA revamped laws a violation of the 8th?USSC said nobifurcated trial (guilt phase and sentencing phaseaggravating circumstances (circumstances of crime that call for dp)mitigating circumstances (circumstances of crime that call for life sentence)automatic appeal to state supreme court TERM 54

Appeals

DEFINITION 54 Not in constitution, but all states and fed made statutesappeal of right- right to have higher court review convictionwrits- discretionary review by a higher court when review of right is over. deals with issues not brought up in appeal of righthabeas corpus most common, filed to challengedetention.USSC and congress restrict how many you can file in federal court, more than two has to be for extradinary circumstances. State law makes own rules TERM 55

Durso

DEFINITION 55 Voluntary prayer in school debate

Gratz v

Bollinger

Gratz v. Bollinger ,539 U.S. 244(2003),[1]was aUnited StatesSupreme Courtcaseregarding theUniversity of Michiganundergraduateaffirmative actionadmissionspolicy. In a 63 decision announced on June 23, 2003,Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.