The US Supreme Court was created in Article III of the Constitution and has the ultimate authority on the interpretation of constitutional law and is therefore deemed the highest court in the nation (USSC). The Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who review cases from lower courts throughout the nation and rule on the constitutionality of the issues (Urofsky, 2001). The Supreme Court plays a large role in the American legal system because its rulings become law, affecting subsequent cases throughout the nation. During the late fifties and sixties, a time known as the Warren Court, the Supreme Court handed down multiple rulings that were controversial and especially impactful in the area of criminal investigations.
The Warren Court represents the years from 1953 to 1969 when Earl Warren was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Urofsky, 2001). During the sixteen years of the Warren Court seventeen different men served under the leadership of Chief Justice Warren (Urofsky, 2001). These associate judges, and the order in which they took office, played a large part in the decisions that were passed because they affected the shift from a more conservative court in the first half of the Warren Court to a more liberal perspective that was prevalent in the second half of the Warren Court (cite?). It is the later, more liberal era of the Warren Court that is remembered for many of its landmark cases. Of the seventeen justices of the Warren Court there were a few that were consistently influential in decisions and well-known for their opinions. The four most influential and well-known justices other than Chief Justice Warren were Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Joseph Brennan, and Thurgood Marshal...
... middle of paper ...
...e Supreme Court of the United States: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/briefoverview.pdf
An Historical Argument for the Right to Counsel During Police Investigation. (1964). The Yale Law Journal, 1000-1057.
Blasi, V. (1983). The Burger Court: The Couner-Revolution That Wasn't. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kamisar, Y. (2012). The Rise, Decline, and Fall(?) of Miranda. Washington Law Review.
Medalie, R., Zeitz, L., & Alexander, P. (1968). Custodial Interrogations in Our Nation's Capital: The Attempt to Implement Miranda. Michigan Law Review, 1347.
Scheneker Jr., C. R. (1973). Nonarrest Automobile Stops: Unconstitutional Seizures of the Person. Stanford Law Review, 865-884.
The Curious Confusion Surrounding Escobedo v. Illinois. (1965). The University of CHicago Law Review, 560-580.
Urofsky, M. I. (2001). The Warren Court. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.
Although a portion of Leuchtenburg’s evidence supporting his opinion on which case constituted a constitutional revolution involved the shift in the Court’s decision-making, the question of the reason for the shift in the Court begs to be explained. At the time, during the case of West Coast v. Parrish, the court seemed to be in sorts fueled by politics. The Justices were concerned with the consequences that could very well up rise from their reluctance to approve the standard legislation. In other words, they may have shifted their votes in hopes of saving the traditional foundation. Justice Roberts’ voting decisions would then need to be closely examined seeing that he supported the liberal side in 1934 concerning the case of Nebbia v. New York, supported the conservative side in 1935-1936 concerning the Rail Pension and Tipaldo, and then returned to suppor...
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
In the 1920’s a heightened suspicion of communist activities on domestic American land arose, the Red Scare. Benjamin Gitlow, a prominent member of the Socialist party, was arrested and convicted on charges of violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 during these drastic times. What was his violation? The publication and circulation of the Left-Wing Manifesto, a mere pamphlet, in the United States was his infringement. He appealed the decision on the basis that it violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press and it was passed on to the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Gitlow on the basis of Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gitlow v. New York exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.
The Court sets up their argument by listing two competing concerns which must be accommodated in defining a voluntary consent. They are the legitimate need for such searches and the requirement of assuring the absence of coercion. The Court digresses from the case at hand with the first concern. The facts of Schneckloth v. Bustamonte indicate that the suspects were stopped for the violation of having lights burned out on their automobile. Given these circumstances there is no legitimate need to search for further evidence. All the proof needed to give a ticket for...
Chief Justice Burger is not described in a favorable light throughout the book. He was too concerned about power and that was shown by the way he assigned cases. He assigned high-profile cases to himself, while delegating cases with insignificant decisions to other members of the court. This practice was also done by Chief Justice Warren. Chief Justice Burger often times changed his vote to be in the majority and thus...
The act of interrogation has been around for thousands of years. From the Punic Wars to the war in Iraq, interrogating criminals, prisoners or military officers in order to receive advantageous information has been regularly used. These interrogation techniques can range from physical pain to emotional distress. Hitting an individual with a whip while they hang from a ceiling or excessively questioning them may seem like an ideal way to get them to reveal something, but in reality it is ineffective and . This is because even the most enduring individual can be made to admit anything under excruciating circumstances. In the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights there is a provision (“no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” ) which reflects a time-honored common principle that no person is bound to betray him or herself or can be forced to give incriminating evidence. This ideology of self-incrimination has been challenged heavily over the past s...
During the years the Supreme Court has gone through some changes of its’ own. While Chief Justice Earl Warren was there the first African-American Justice was named to the court: Thurgood Marshall. Chief Justice Warren’s leadership marked a force in social issues. Along the lines of desegregation, election reform and the rights of defendants.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
In this paper I am going to be discussing the Miranda rights. What they mean to you, what they entitle you to, and how they came to be used in law enforcement today. I am discussing this topic because, one it is useful to me as a police officer, two they can be very difficult to understand, and three if they are not read properly to you when you are placed under an arrest it could actually get you off. I will start off by discussing the history and some details of the Miranda case.
Shnayerson, Robert. The Illustrated History of The Supreme Court Of The United States. New York: Abrams, 1986.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Harris, George C. "Testimony for Sale: The Law and Ethics of Snitches and Experts." Pepperdine Law Review (2000-2001): 28. Online.