Transcript Mapp vs. Ohio
Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US
African Americans were discriminated against staying in motels because of their race/ ethnicity.
The Heart Atlanta Motel, Inc. operated a motel which refused accommodations to blacks.
The Heart of Atlanta Motel was a large, 216-room motel in Atlanta, Georgia.
In direct violation of the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — an act which banned racial discrimination in public places, largely based on Congress' control of interstate commerce — the motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 It asserted that the Thirteenth Amendment applies primarily to slavery and the removal of widespread disabilities associated with it; the amendment undoubtedly would not place issues of racial discrimination in public accommodations .
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Heart of Atlanta Motel to receive business from clientele of all races.
Gideon vs. Wainwright
Between midnight and 8:00 a.m. on June 3, 1961, a burglary occurred at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida.
Unknown person broke a door, smashed a cigarette machine and a record player, and stole money from a cash register.
Later that day, a witness reported that he had seen Clarence Earl Gideon in the poolroom at around 5:30 that morning, leaving with a wine bottle and money in his pockets. Based on this accusation alone, the police arrested Gideon and charged him with breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny.
The Florida court declined to appoint counsel for Gideon. As a result, he was forced to act as his own counsel and conduct his own defense in court, emphasizing his innocence in the case. At the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a guilty verdict. The court sentenced Gideon to serve five years in the state prison.
Gideon argued in his appeal that he had been denied counsel and, therefore, his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.
Gideon v. Wainwright overruled Betts v. Brady, instead holding that the assistance of counsel, if desired by a defendant who could not afford to hire counsel, was a fundamental right under the United States Constitution and essential for a fair trial and due process of law.
Gideon chose W. Fred Turner to be his lawyer in his second trial. The retrial took place on August 5, 1963, five months after the Supreme Court ruling.
The jury acquitted Gideon after one hour of deliberation.
Mapp vs. Ohio
The period from 1961 to 1969, the Warren Court examined almost every aspect of the criminal justice system in the United States, using the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to all courts in every State.
The Warren Court's revolution in the criminal justice system began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the first of several significant cases in which it re evaluated the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to State judicial review.
On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant.
Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a random piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the fake warrant away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.” The police did not find the bombing suspect or the betting equipment.
They did find pornographic material in a trunk that a previous tenant had left behind. She was arrested, prosecuted, and found guilty for possession of pornographic material.
The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in the favor of Mapp. The Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment.
Miranda vs. Arizona
On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, by the Phoenix Police Department, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl ten days earlier
After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me
Moore's objection was overruled and based on this confession and other evidence, Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping and sentenced to 20 to 30 years imprisonment on each charge, with sentences to run concurrently. Moore filed Miranda's appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court claiming that Miranda's confession was not fully voluntary and should not have been admitted into the court proceedings.
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision to admit the confession in State v. Miranda The Supreme Court actually decided four different cases that all had similar circumstances when they ruled on Miranda.
Under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the court ended up siding with Miranda with a 5-4 vote. At first, the attorneys for Miranda attempted to argue that his rights had been violated as he had not been given an attorney during the confession, citing the 6 th Amendment. However, the Court focused on the rights guaranteed by the 5 th Amendment including that of protection against self incrimination Congress passed a law in 1968 that provided the ability for courts to examine confessions on a case-by case basis to decide whether they should be allowed. The main result of Miranda v. Arizona was the creation of the "Miranda Rights." These were listed in the Majority Opinion: "[A suspect] must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires."
Roe vs. Wade
The court legalized abortion by ruling that state laws could not restrict it during the first three months of pregnancy. Could regulate, but not prohibit abortion during the second trimester. Decision in effect overturned anti-abortion laws in 46 states.
4th Amendment rights of a person to be secure in their persons.
1973 All state laws prohibiting abortions were made unconstitutional based on a woman's right to privacy
Baker vs. Carr
1962- Declared that the principle of "one person, one vote" must prevail at both state and national levels.
Decision required that districts be redrawn as that each representative represented the same number of people.
Opens court for numerous voting suits The Baker V. Carr dealt with Administrative law. This field of law is associated with how the Federal Government treats its citizens and how the government institutes its programs, creates its agencies and establishes laws. In Baker v. Carr, Mr. Charles Baker went up against Joe Carr who as an appointed representative of Tennessee.
In Baker V. Carr, Baker said that the law upheld by the Tennessee Constitution regarding the establishment of districts was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In Baker v. Carr, the United States Supreme Court said that Tennessee refusal to follow the expressed law of remapping the districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Swann vs. Charlotte Bd. Of Ed
The Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education case dealt with the desegregation of schools from 1970 to 1971.
In 1954, after the Brown v. Board of Education case, the court ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional. But little was being done to get rid of the racial segregation. After the Brown case in 1954, North Carolina assigned schools according to geographical location instead of race or color. Problem was that after the reassignments, African Americans still ended up in African American schools in central Charlotte as opposed to the majority white schools further outside the city. The Swann case was brought on behalf of James Swann, a six-year-old, and nine other families. They wanted the Board of Education to do something about the assignment of schools and how each school had a predominant race 1971- A unanimous decision that the busing of students may be ordered to achieve racial desegregation.
The Fourteenth Amendment states that all citizens have “equal protection of the laws.” If local governments do not uphold this by, in this case, denying an African American child into a predominantly white school for the fact of his race, then the local government is not upholding the Constitution.
On April 20, 1971, the Court ruled that busing students and reorganizing school boundaries are legal and good methods to gain a desegregated public school system.
Engel vs. Vitale
A group of parents sued a New York public school district for requiring students to begin each school day by reciting a nondenominational prayer.
Written by the New York State Board of Regents, the prayer read: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country."
Both the state court and the New York Court of Appeals allowed the prayer to be recited.
The Court ruled that requiring students to recite the prayer is unconstitutional. The Founders included the First Amendment to ensure that the majority could not officially recognize any particular religion as the use of school prayers does.
1962- Local and state laws requiring prayer in public schools were banned on the grounds that such laws violated the First Amendment.