Mind map
US Supreme Court Cases
Map content
US Supreme Court Cases
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people and guaranteed all citizens equal protection of the laws. The 14th Amendment established citizenship rights for the first time and equal protection to former slaves, laying the foundation for how we understand these ideals today. It is the most relevant amendment to Americans' lives today.
- Debs v. United States
- Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader. On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti war speech in Ohio protesting the US involvement in World War 1. He was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917 and convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. The case against Debs was based on a document named Anti War proclamation showing that his intent was to openly protest against the war. The federal government's argument was that Debs was trying to arouse mutiny and treason by preventing drafting soldiers into the U.S. army. This speech was outlawed in the U.S with the Espionage Act. The defense argued that Debs was entitled to the free speech rights provided in the first amendment. This was one of the cases decided in 1919 in which the court had upheld convictions that restricted free speech.
- D.C v. Heller
- Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.
- Terry vs. Ohio
- Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the 4th Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the supreme court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing Terry was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
- Chaves v. Martinez
- Oliverio Martinez was stopped while riding his bicycle home from work by police investigating narcotics violations. When police attempted to handcuff him, a struggle ensued, but it is unclear who started it. During the struggle, Martinez was shot, resulting in permanent paralysis and loss of vision. A year later he sued the officers, saying the search and use of deadly force were unconstitutional. The officers introduced as evidence in their defense a taped confession obtained while Martinez was receiving medical treatment in the hospital, in which he admitted to grabbing the gun of one of the officers during the struggle. Martinez claimed that the tape could not be used as evidence because he had not been read his Miranda rights. The district court ruled with Martinez that the tape was inadmissible. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.
- Batson v. Kentucky
- Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites. Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him. The Court found that the prosecutor's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Relying heavily on precedents set in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) and Swain v. Alabama (1965), Justice Powell held that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large because it "undermines public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." Without identifying a "neutral" reason why the four blacks should have been excluded from the jury, the prosecutor's actions were in violation of the Constitution.
- Robinson v. California
- A jury found defendant Lawrence Robinson guilty under a California statute that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Robinson sought further review from the United States Supreme Court because at the time of his arrest, he was not engaged in any illegal conduct, and there was no proof that he had actually used narcotics within California. The record included a police officer's testimony that defendant had scar tissue and discoloration on the inside of his arm, as well as needle marks and a scab below the crook of the elbow, which the officer believed was the result of injections by hypodermic needles. The officer also testified that defendant admitted to the occasional use of narcotics. But at the time of arrest, the defendant was not using or in possession of any narcotics. The Court found § 11721 to be unconstitutional and in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.
- Robinson v. California
- Batson, a black man, was on trial charged with second-degree burglary and receipt of stolen goods. During the jury selection, the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four black persons on the venire, resulting in a jury composed of all whites. Batson was convicted on both of the charges against him. The Court found that the prosecutor's actions violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Relying heavily on precedents set in Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) and Swain v. Alabama (1965), Justice Powell held that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors not only deprives the accused of important rights during a trial, but also is devastating to the community at large because it "undermines public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice." Without identifying a "neutral" reason why the four blacks should have been excluded from the jury, the prosecutor's actions were in violation of the Constitution.
- Batson v. Kentucky
- Oliverio Martinez was stopped while riding his bicycle home from work by police investigating narcotics violations. When police attempted to handcuff him, a struggle ensued, but it is unclear who started it. During the struggle, Martinez was shot, resulting in permanent paralysis and loss of vision. A year later he sued the officers, saying the search and use of deadly force were unconstitutional. The officers introduced as evidence in their defense a taped confession obtained while Martinez was receiving medical treatment in the hospital, in which he admitted to grabbing the gun of one of the officers during the struggle. Martinez claimed that the tape could not be used as evidence because he had not been read his Miranda rights. The district court ruled with Martinez that the tape was inadmissible. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed.
- Chaves v. Martinez
- Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the 4th Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the supreme court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing Terry was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
- Terry vs. Ohio
- Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.
- D.C v. Heller
- Eugene V. Debs was an American labor and political leader. On June 16, 1918 Debs made an anti war speech in Ohio protesting the US involvement in World War 1. He was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917 and convicted and sentenced to serve 10 years in prison. The case against Debs was based on a document named Anti War proclamation showing that his intent was to openly protest against the war. The federal government's argument was that Debs was trying to arouse mutiny and treason by preventing drafting soldiers into the U.S. army. This speech was outlawed in the U.S with the Espionage Act. The defense argued that Debs was entitled to the free speech rights provided in the first amendment. This was one of the cases decided in 1919 in which the court had upheld convictions that restricted free speech.
- Debs v. United States
The 1st amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices. While the 2nd amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The 4th Amendment protects you from unlawful searches. The 5th Amendment is the right to remain silent. The 6th Amendment is the right to counsel. For example, when you get stopped, you simply say: “I do not consent to a search today." The 8th amendment prohibits unusual and cruel punishment.
The Court's policy decisions affecting criminal justice are produced by the votes of the justices who select, hear, decide, and issue opinions in cases. It is widely recognized that the Supreme Court's decision-making patterns are determined by the Court's membership at any given moment in history. With these cases presented, these all serve an importance to us and our criminal justice system because these court policies and bill of rights shaped our constitutional law and judicial policy making in our law enforcement today.
Information
- Description
- Law Mind Map on US Supreme Court Cases, created by Briana Manning on 25/03/2022.
- Created by
- Briana Manning
- Views
- 2
- Rating