Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Landmark Supreme Court Cases in Criminal Procedure: From Miranda to Maryland, Quizzes of Criminal Justice

Definitions and summaries of 44 landmark supreme court cases that have shaped criminal procedure in the united states. Topics include the right to counsel, search and seizure, self-incrimination, and more. These cases have had a significant impact on the interpretation and application of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments.

Typology: Quizzes

2012/2013

Uploaded on 12/11/2013

aleena-xox
aleena-xox 🇺🇸

28 documents

Partial preview of the text

Download Landmark Supreme Court Cases in Criminal Procedure: From Miranda to Maryland and more Quizzes Criminal Justice in PDF only on Docsity!

Miranda v

Arizona

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. TERM 2

Betts v

Brady

DEFINITION 2 (1942) denied counsel to indigent (poor) defendants when prosecuted by a state. TERM 3

Gideon v

Wainwright

DEFINITION 3 Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. TERM 4

Terry v

Ohio

DEFINITION 4 (1968), held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." TERM 5

Chimel v

Cali

DEFINITION 5 (1969), held that police officers arresting a person in his or her home could not search the entire home without a search warrant, although they may search the area within immediate reach of the person.

Hurtado v

Cali

(1884), case helped define rules regarding the use of grand juries in indictments. TERM 7

Palko v

Conn

DEFINITION 7 case concerning the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. TERM 8

Cupp v

Murphy

DEFINITION 8 (1973), Court upheld a murder conviction notwithstanding a challenge that the evidence upon which guilt was based was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. TERM 9

Johnson v

Zerbst

DEFINITION 9 (1938), case, in which the petitioner, Johnson, had been convicted in federal court of feloniously possessing, uttering, and passing counterfeit money in a trial where he had not been represented by an attorney but instead by himself. TERM 10

Malloy v

Hogan

DEFINITION 10 (1964), a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts.

Florida v

Jardines

held that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant. TERM 17

Maryland v

King

DEFINITION 17 held that "when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." TERM 18

Illinois v

Wardlow

DEFINITION 18 (2000), TERM 19

Rhode Island v

Innis

DEFINITION 19 clarifies what constitutes "interrogation" for the purposes of Miranda warnings. TERM 20

Brady v

Maryland

DEFINITION 20 the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence.

Stoner v

Cali

case appealed from the California Courts of Appeal after the California Supreme Court denied review. TERM 22

Arizona v

Hicks

DEFINITION 22 Arizona v. Hicks, , held that the Fourth Amendment requires the police to have probable cause to seize items in plain view. TERM 23

city of Indianapolis v

Edmond

DEFINITION 23 (2000),limited the power of law enforcement to conduct suspicionless searches, specifically, using drug-sniffing dogs at roadblocks. TERM 24

Scott v

Illinois

DEFINITION 24 (1979), In Scott, the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel. TERM 25

Kyles v

Whitley

DEFINITION 25 a prosecutor has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant.

Florida v

Bostick

overturned a per se rule imposed by the Florida Supreme Court that held consensual searches of passengers on buses were always unreasonable. TERM 32

Faretta v

Cali

DEFINITION 32 (1975), held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings. TERM 33

Maryland v

Buie

DEFINITION 33 held that the Fourth Amendment permits a properly limited protective sweep in conjunction with an in-home arrest when the searching officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene. TERM 34

Duncan v

Louisiana

DEFINITION 34 (1968), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states. TERM 35

Minnesota v

Dickerson

DEFINITION 35 (1993), unanimously held that, when a police officer who is conducting a lawful patdown search for weapons feels something that plainly is contraband, the object may be seized even though it is not a weapon.

Berkemer v

McCarty

in the case of a person stopped for a misdemeanor traffic offense, once they are in custody, the protections of the Fifth Amendment apply to them pursuant to the decision in Miranda v. TERM 37

Michigan v

Mosley

DEFINITION 37 held that a criminal suspect's assertion of his right to remain silent after a Miranda warning does not preclude the police from re-Mirandizing him and questioning him about a different crime. TERM 38

Illinois v

Lidster

DEFINITION 38 ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use a roadblock to investigate a traffic incident. TERM 39

Arizona v

Gant

DEFINITION 39 (2009), \holding that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. TERM 40

Georgia v

Randolph

DEFINITION 40 (2006)held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects.