Supreme Court Landmark Criminal Law Cases
1. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Facts: Ernesto Miranda was arrested and confessed to a crime without being informed of his rights.
Issue: Does the Fifth Amendment require law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation?
Holding: Yes. The Court ruled that suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning (now known as “Miranda rights”).
Significance: Established procedural safeguards to protect against self-incrimination and coerced confessions, dramatically changing police interrogation procedures.
2. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Facts: Clarence Gideon was denied a court-appointed attorney in a felony trial because Florida law only provided one for capital cases.
Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel apply to state felony trials?
Holding: Yes. The Court held that the right to counsel is fundamental and states must provide attorneys to defendants who cannot afford one.
Significance: Expanded the right to counsel, ensuring fair trial standards nationwide.
3. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Facts: Police entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a proper warrant and found illegal materials.
Issue: Can evidence obtained through illegal searches be used in state courts?
Holding: No. The Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states, barring illegally obtained evidence.
Significance: Strengthened Fourth Amendment protections by excluding unlawfully seized evidence.
4. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Facts: Police stopped and frisked Terry based on suspicion without probable cause.
Issue: Is a “stop and frisk” search without probable cause a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Holding: No. The Court allowed “reasonable suspicion” as a lower standard than probable cause for brief stops and protective frisks.
Significance: Defined the scope of police investigatory stops and balance between public safety and individual rights.
5. Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Facts: Prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude Black jurors.
Issue: Is the use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on race unconstitutional?
Holding: Yes. The Court ruled racial discrimination in jury selection violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Significance: Created a mechanism to challenge discriminatory jury selection practices.
6. Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Facts: Known as the "Scottsboro Boys" case, defendants were denied effective counsel in a capital trial.
Issue: Does the denial of counsel in a capital case violate due process?
Holding: Yes. The Court ruled that due process requires states to provide counsel in capital cases.
Significance: One of the earliest expansions of the right to counsel under due process.
7. Brady v. Maryland (1963)
Facts: Prosecutors withheld evidence favorable to the defense.
Issue: Does the suppression of exculpatory evidence violate due process?
Holding: Yes. The prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the defendant.
Significance: Established the Brady rule, critical for fairness in criminal trials.
8. Katz v. United States (1967)
Facts: FBI placed a listening device on a public phone booth without a warrant.
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment protect conversations in public phone booths?
Holding: Yes. The Court extended Fourth Amendment protections to cover reasonable expectations of privacy.
Significance: Modernized search and seizure law for evolving technologies.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Issue | Holding/Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Miranda v. Arizona | Right to counsel and silence during interrogation | Established Miranda warnings |
| Gideon v. Wainwright | Right to counsel in state felony cases | States must provide attorneys to indigent defendants |
| Mapp v. Ohio | Illegally obtained evidence | Exclusionary rule applies to states |
| Terry v. Ohio | Stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion | Allowed limited searches with reasonable suspicion |
| Batson v. Kentucky | Racial discrimination in jury selection | Banned race-based exclusion of jurors |
| Powell v. Alabama | Right to counsel in capital cases | Due process requires counsel |
| Brady v. Maryland | Suppression of exculpatory evidence | Prosecution must disclose favorable evidence |
| Katz v. United States | Privacy in electronic surveillance | Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy |
RELATED Blog
0 comments