Shopping Bag

0 item(s) in cart/ total: $0    view cart

Criminal Evidenced & Procedure

Products (Total Items: 306 )
Miller-El v. Dretke
Peremptory challenge; juror discrimination; racial discrimination; Batson v. Kentucky, Johnson v. California.
Adamson v. California
The fifth amendment's protection against self incrimination; state prosecutions; through the fourteenth amendment.
Arizona v. Fulminante
Harmless error rule; admission of a coerced confession; warrant re-trial; stare decisis.
Batson v. Kentucky
Batson challenge; peremptory challenge; prima facie; strike all black jurors is prima facie discriminatory; black defendant; absent a race neutral explanation.
Johnson v. California
Prison racial-segregation policies are subject to strict scrutiny.
Bell v. Cone
Death penalty; capital punishment; death row; actions of defense counsel are presumed reasonable; capital offense; defense attorney; defense strategy.
Berkemer v. McCarty
Custodial interrogation; noncustodial interrogation; ordinary traffic stops do not give rise to a need for miranda warnings.
Board of Education v. Earls
Suspicionless drug testing of public school students involved in extracurricular activities is a reasonable; special needs analysis.
Douglas v. California
Indigent defendants are entitled to counsel for the first appeal as of right; ex parte; in forma pauperis.
Faretta v. California
Sixth amendment; defendant has the right to represent himself at trial, as long as his decision to do so is voluntary and intelligent. pro se.
Florida v. Bostick
Bus searches are not necessarily an unreasonable restraint on a passenger s freedom; randomly; an individual's freedom to leave.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Right to counsel; state court felony defendants are entitled to counsel; indigent defendants charged with felonies in state court proceedings have the right to have counsel appointed for them.
Horton v. California
Warrantless seizure of evidence of a crime found in plain view should not be prohibited by the fourth amendment, plain view" doctrine.
Lisenba v. California
Coerced confession was allowed in death penalty case.
Mapp v. Ohio
All evidence obtained by unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the fourth amendment is inadmissible in state court; overrules wolf v. colorado; stare decisis.
Maryland v. Buie
Protective sweep of a dwelling is valid pursuant to a lawful arrest; reasonable suspicion that there is some danger; protective sweeps.
Maryland v. Craig
The confrontation clause; protect a child witness from trauma; testifying in the physical presence of the defendant, ensures the reliability of the evidence; rigorous adversarial testing; essence of effective confrontation; cross examination.
Michigan v. Long
Terry frisk of an automobile for weapons; search of the passenger compartment; reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts and the rational inferences; gain immediate control of weapons.
Miranda v. Arizona
Custodial interrogation; duress; exculpatory evidence; inculpatory evidence; miranda rule; right against self incrimination; defendants must be informed of their rights prior to interrogation; used against the defendant at trial; right to remain silent.
Missouri v. Hunter
Concurrent sentence; cumulative sentence; same offense; defendants may be sentenced in a single trial under mutltiple statutes proscribing the same conduct; cumulative punishment.
North Carolina v. Butler
Express waiver; implied waiver; waiver of counsel; waiver may also be inferred by the words or conduct of the suspect.
Oregon v. Mathiason
Miranda warnings are not required in noncustodial interrogations; custodial setting; custodial interrogation.
Spano v. New York
Confessions obtained by relentless questioning and plays for sympathy violate due process; police pressure; not voluntary.
Strickland v. Washington
Ineffective assistance of counsel; Yarborough v. Gentry; reversal of a conviction or sentence; deficiency was prejudicial to the defense; mitigating circumstance.
Terry v. Ohio
Police may stop and frisk someone reasonably believed to have committed a crime; reasonable suspicion that a suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime; detain him briefly for questioning; carrying a dangerous weapon.
United States v. Arvizu
Reasonable suspicion is based on all the surrounding circumstances; totality of the circumstances surrounding a stop.
United States v. Dougherty
Jury nullification remains an important component of american justice; prerogative of the jury after considering the facts and law presented.
United States v. Dunnigan
Sentences may be enhanced based on perjury; sentence enhancement; defendant's right to testify on his or her own behalf; sentencing guidelines.
United States v. Goba
Risk of flight; detained pre trial; pretrial detention is justified if the court finds that no conditions imposed on the defendant will assure the defendant's appearance and the safety of the community.
United States v. Salamone
Challenge for cause; striking jurors for cause on the basis of their nra membership was an abuse of discretion; impartial.
United States v. Mendenhall
If a reasonable person would believe she was free to leave, there was no seizure a person is seized when, in light of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed that she was no longer free to leave. Seizure.
Warden v. Hayden
Police may conduct a warrantless search of a building when in hot pursuit; exigency.
Weeks v. United States
Obtaining evidence without a search warrant may violate the exclusionary rule amendment; the fourth amendment forbids federal officers from obtaining evidence through unreasonable searches and seizures.
Wong Sun v. United States
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; independent source rule; prophylactic; evidence that is so attenuated from the original unlawful conduct as to dissipate the taint is admissible.
Palko v. Connecticut
Double jeopardy, fifth amendment prohibition does not apply to the states through the fourteenth amendment, only rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty are applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment.
Wolf v. Colorado
Due process, fourth amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures, exclusion of all evidence obtained by an unreasonable search is not required by due process .
Duncan v. Louisiana
Sixth amendment right to a jury trial for criminal defendents is incorporated to the states by the fourteenth amendment.
United States v. Leon
Exclusionary rule limited by good faith exception, evidence seized by law enforcement acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate is admissible, even if found unsupported by probable cause.
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott
Exclusionary rule does not apply at parole revocation hearings, evidence seized in violation of fourth amendment unreasonable search and seizure prohibition may be introduced.
Katz v. United States
Wiretap in public phone booth violates fourth amendment, right of privacy protects all communications that a person does not knowingly expose to the public.
California v. Greenwood
Trash on curb may be searched without a warrant, warrantless search allowed since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Florida v. Riley
Surveillance from airspace above a residence does not constitute a search for which a warrant is required under the fourth amendment.
United States v. Karo
Seizure of property requires meaningful interference with a possessory interest; installing a beeper in a container before possession is not a seizure.
Kyllo v. United States
Thermal imaging to obtain evidence from a private residence is a search; use of a device not used by the general public to obtain evidence emanating from the interior of a residence constitutes a search.
United States v. White
Electronic surveillance evidence obtained with informant consent is admissible; a person bears the risk that communications with another regarding criminal activities will be transmitted, electronically or otherwise, to government agents.
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
Freedom of the press; the press is not immune from a valid search warrant; a warrant may issue to search any property, regardless of whether the occupant is suspected of a crime.
Spinelli v.  United States
Probable cause; informant must have reliable knowledge of the subject matter of his tip in order for a search warrant based on the tip to be valid.
Illinois v.  Gates
Corroboration veracity; probable cause for a warrant resulting from an anonymous informant's tip is based on the totality of the circumstances; probable cause is not a mechanical, technical concept.
Maryland v. Pringle
Reasonable suspicion establishes probable cause; lawful arrest; motion to suppress.
Maryland v. Garrison
Good faith factual mistakes do not invalidate an otherwise valid search warrant; police officers have lattitude in executing valid search warrants.
Richards v.  Wisconsin
Knock and announce; police must knock and announce their presence prior to executing a search warrant unless they demonstrate reasonable suspicion that it would be dangerous or futile or would result in destruction of evidence of the crime.
United States v. Watson
Exigent circumstances; felony arrests may be made solely on the basis of probable cause, without a warrant; statue authorizing warrantless felony arrests is constitutional.
United States v. Robinson
Search incident to lawful arrest; police may search arrestee for weapons or evidence regardless of insignificance of arrest; protective search.
Whren v.  United States
Pretextual stop; police stops need only be supported by probably cause; temporary detention of a motorist who the police have probable cause to believe has committed a civil traffic violation is consistent with the fourth amendment.
Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
Warrantless arrest permitted even for a misdemeanor or infraction punishable only by a fine; if an officer has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a very minor criminal offense, the officer may arrest that person without a warrant.
Tennessee v. Garner
Deadly force to prevent felony suspect's escape violates fourth amendment unless officers have probable cause to believe that the suspect presents a threat to the life or safety of the officers or others.
Payton v.  New York
Arrest warrant is required to arrest a person in his or her home.
Chimel v. California
Immediate reach search permitted pursuant to a lawful arrest; the police may conduct a search of any area within the immediate reach of the accused criminal.
Vale v. Louisiana
Search incident to lawful arrest does not include the search of a house when the arrest occurred outside of the house; search must be substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.
California v.  Carney
Homeless living in vehicle still subject to the automobile vehicle search exception to the warrant requirement; warrantless searches of readily movable vehicles are not unreasonable when probable cause supports the search.
Thornton v. United States
Police officer may search vehicle incident to lawful arrest once probable cause exists to arrest recent occupant of vehicle who had access to interior of vehicle. search
Knowles v. Iowa
Officer may not search vehicle incident to citation.
California v.  Acevedo
Police may search automobile and containers within it if they have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence is contained therein. Stare decisis.
Wyoming v. Houghton
Police officers with probable cause to search car may inspect passengers belongings found in car that are capable of concealing object of search.
Colorado v. Bertine
Routine inventory search is not criminal investigation and does not require warrant or probable cause.
Florida v. J.L.
Anonymous tip that does not bear any indicia of reliability does not justify a stop and frisk search.
Illinois v. Wardlow
Flight from police is not indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such.
Florida v. Royer
When officers have reasonable suspicion that person has committed crime or is about to commit crime, they may temporarily detain individual for questioning no longer than necessary to serve purposes of stop.
United States v. Drayton
There is no seizure of person if police officer does not do anything to suggest to reasonable person that he or she is not free to terminate encounter.
United States v. Place
Police dog; drug dog sniff luggage; K-9 dog; investigative detention; when officer's observations lead him reasonably to believe that luggage contains narcotics, officer may detain luggage briefly to investigate circumstances that aroused his suspicion. Contraband.
Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls
Suspicionless drug testing of public school students involved in extracurricular activities is reasonable means of furthering schools interest in preventing and deterring drug use. special needs analysis.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
Individual need not be informed that he has right to refuse consent to search before his consent to search will be considered voluntary. Sine qua non.
Illinois v. Rodriguez
If law enforcement officers have reason to believe individual giving consent to search has authority over premises to be searched, then entry will be validated even if it is later determined that person did not have authority to consent. Resident.
United States v. Russell
Entrapment defense prohibits law enforcement officers from instigating criminal act by persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and punish them. Entrapment predisposition.
Jacobson v. United States
Predisposition to broad range of conduct does not demonstrate predisposition to commit specific acts falling within that range.
Betts v. Brady
Fourteenth amendment does not command state court to appoint counsel to represent criminal defendant in every case. due process incorporation sixth amendment.
Alabama v. Shelton
Indigent misdemeanor defendant is entitled to appointed counsel at criminal trial when suspended sentence of imprisonment may later be enforced upon revocation of probation. Misdemeanor probation suspended sentence.
Ross v. Moffitt
Criminal defendant does not have constitutional right to appointed counsel to assist in pursuing discretionary appeal in state court or petition for certiorari in supreme court of united states. discretionary review.
Ashcraft v. Tennessee
Constitution does not permit conviction based on coerced confession.
Watts v. Indiana
Relentless, systematic police questioning producing confession violates due process clause. due process inquisition.
Massiah v. United States
Sixth amendment prohibits government interrogation of defendant after indictment outside presence of counsel. Sixth amendment.
Escobedo v. Illinois
Right to counsel. when police investigation is no longer general inquiry into unsolved crime but focuses on particular suspect in police custody, must allow opportunity to consult with lawyer or warn of absolute constitutional right to remain silent.
Yarborough v. Alvarado
Whether suspect is in custody under miranda is determined objectively by how reasonable person in the suspect's situation would understand ability to terminate questioning and leave custody.
Rhode Island v. Innis
For purposes of Miranda, interrogation occurs when police either expressly question suspect in custody or engage in any actions or dialogue that police should know is reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response from suspect.
Illinois v. Perkins
Miranda warnings are not required when the suspect is unaware that he is speaking to a law enforcement officer and gives a voluntary statement; incriminating statement.
Minnick v. Mississippi
When counsel is requested, interrogation must cease, and officials may not reinitiate interrogation without counsel present, whether or not accused has consulted with his attorney.
New York v. Quarles
Miranda warnings are not required before police question a suspect in custody about imminent matters related to public safety. Exigeny.
United States v. Patane
Nontestimonial evidence obtained as a result of a defendant s voluntary statement given without the benefit of miranda warnings need not be excluded at the defendant's trial; fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
Missouri v. Seibert
Incriminating statements initially made before miranda warnings are given are not admissible simply because they are repeated after proper warnings are given.
Moran v. Burbine
Absent coercion, a defendant's waiver made with a full understanding of his rights is valid as a matter of law.
Dickerson v. United States
Congress may not legislatively supersede court decisions interpreting and applying the constitution. Prophylactic stare decisis.
Chavez v. Martinez
The fifth amendment right against self incrimination does not attach until criminal proceedings have been initiated.
Brewer v. Williams I
The right to the assistance of counsel can be waived only by the knowing relinquishment of that right. Express waiver; habeas corpus; implied waiver.
Kuhlman v. Wilson
When police take no direct action to solicit incriminating statements, but merely listen to voluntary statements made by an accused, the right to counsel is not violated. Informant.
United States v. Wade
An in court identification of a defendant by a witness must be excluded from evidence if it is based solely on a pretrial identification that was obtained without notice to and participation by defense counsel. Exclusionary rule lineup.
Kirby v. Illinois
The right to counsel does not attach until the initiation of formal judicial proceedings. Showup.
Manson v. Brathwaite
An unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification of the defendant need not be excluded if, under the totality of the circumstances, it is sufficiently reliable.
Boyd v. United States
The compulsory production of private books and papers subject to forfeiture compels owner to be witness against himself and is equivalent to an unreasonable search and seizure. Fourth amendment; right against self incriimination.
United States v. Dionisio
Fourth amendment protects individuals from unreasonable search and seizure of all evidence in which they have reasonable expectation of privacy. civil contempt; investigative grand jury.
United States v. Mandujano
Miranda warnings do not apply to grand jury investigations. perjury; right against self incrimination.
Kastigar v. United States
The government may compel witness testimony under statutory immunity against the use of his testimony and all derivative evidence against him in a criminal case. Immunity transactional; immunity use.
Fisher v. United States
The fifth amendment does not prevent compelled disclosure of client materials disclosed to an attorney where the materials would not be privileged in the hands of the client. Attorney client privilege.
United States v. Hubbell
The privilege against self incrimination protects against being compelled to provide information to a grand jury about the existence of sources of potentially incriminating evidence. Independent counsel; subpoena duces tecum; ad testificandum.
United States v. Salerno
Preventative detention of criminal defendant does not violate substantive due process under fifth amendment nor constitute excessive bail under eighth amendment if clear and convincing evidence defendant presents threat to safety of community.
United States v. Armstrong
To go forward on a claim of selective prosecution based on race, the claimant must produce evidence that similarly situated offenders of a different race could have been prosecuted but were not. Discovery.
United States v. Batchelder
Identical substantive criminal statutes do not offend due process by establishing different sentencing provisions available upon conviction. Sentence.
Untied States v. Goodwin
Due process does not prohibit a prosecutor from adding more severe or additional charges against a defendant after the defendant requests a trial by jury.
Coleman v. Alabama
Because preliminary hearings are a critical stage of prosecution, defendants are entitled to the assistance of counsel. bind over grand jury; harmless error; preliminary hearing; right to counsel.
Vasquez v. Hillery
Racial discrimination in the selection of the grand jury requires dismissal of the defendant's conviction. Discrimination; equal protection; habeas corpus; harmless error; stare decisis.
Costello v. United States
Grand jury indictments may be issued based solely on hearsay evidence. Hearsay indictment.
Barker v. Wingo
For speedy trial claims, courts must apply balancing test of conduct of both prosecution and defendant, including length of delay, reason for delay, defendant's assertion of his right, and prejudice to defendant. Habeas corpus; sixth amendment.
Doggett v. United States
Lengthy delays between indictment and trial caused by the government negligence violates the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial. prejudice presumption; statute of repose.
United States v. Lovasco
To prosecute a defendant following investigative delay does not deprive him of due process, even if his defense might have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time. Due process; indictment.
Williams v. Flordia
The fifth amendment privilege against self incrimination is not violated by a requirement that a defendant provide notice of an alibi defense and disclose his alibi witnesses to the prosecution prior to trial. Protective order.
United States v. Bagley
Government failure to assist defense by disclosing impeachment evidence of witnesses is constitutional violation if it deprived defendant of fair trial; material if suppression undermines confidence in outcome. Exculpatory evidence; harmless error.
Pennsylvania v. Ritchie
The nondisclosure of even privileged records violates due process and threatens fundamental fairness in the trial process. compulsary process clause; confrontation clause; due process in camera.
Bordenkircher v. Hayes
It is not vindictive exercise of prosecutor's discretion, and therefore not violation of due process, to carry out threat to reindict defendant on more serious charges if defendant does not plead guilty to original offense charged. Recidivist.
Santobello v. New York
When a plea of guilty has been entered in consideration of a promise made by a prosecutor, the prosecutor must fulfill that promise. Plea bargain.
Mabry v. Johnson
A voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty made by an accused person, who has been advised by competent counsel, may not be collaterally attacked. Concurrent sentence; consecutive sentence; specific performance.
United States v. Benchimol
Each party must comply with the precise terms of a plea agreement.
United States v. Ruiz
The constitution does not require disclosure of impeaching information about witness testimony before entry of a guilty plea. Downward departure; sentencing guidelines.
Boykin v. Alabama
A waiver of constitutional rights through a guilty plea must be voluntarily and willingly made. Plea waiver.
Henderson v.Morgan
A guilty plea is not knowingly and intelligently made, and therefore not voluntarily made, if the defendant did not receive adequate notice of the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Collateral attack.
North Carolina v. Alford
a court may not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.alford plea; nolo contendere.
Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas
The right to trial by jury attaches when a crime carries a maximum jail term of six months or more or the legislature otherwise classifies the offense as serious. Petty offense; probation.
Burch v. Louisiana
When a jury consists of six members, its verdict must be unanimous.
Carter v. Jury Commission
The constitution does not forbid states to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors. Fair cross section requirement; jury.
Taylor v. Louisiana
A petit jury must represent a fair cross section of the community to ensure a defendant's right to trial by an impartial jury under the sixth amendment. Jury wheel; petit jury venire.
Turner v. Murray
A capital defendant accused of an interracial crime is entitled to have prospective jurors informed of the race of the victim and questioned on the issue of racial bias. capital offense; death penalty; death sentence; voir dire.
Lockhart v. McCree
The constitution does not prohibit the removal for cause in a capital case of prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty and unable to impose it if necessary. Bifurcated trial.
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.
Peremptory challenges on the basis of gender violate the equal protection clause.
Murphy v. Florida
In order for media coverage to infect a trial with unfairness, a juror's preconceived notions of guilt or innocence must prevent him or her from rendering a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. impartial jury.
Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada
Pure political speech is protected under the first amendment absent a legitimate government interest in its suppression. First amendment.
Chandler v. Florida
Publicized trials are not per se a due process violation. due process; prejudice; sequestration.
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court Press Enterprise II
The qualified first amendment right of access to criminal proceedings applies to preliminary hearings that function similarly to criminal trials.
Rompilla v. Beard
Even when capital defendant family members and defendant himself say no mitigating evidence, lawyer must make reasonable efforts to obtain and review prosecution evidence of aggravation at sentencing phase of trial. Prejudice.
Florida v. Nixon
Counsel's failure to obtain the defendant's express consent to a strategy of conceding guilt in a capital trial does not render counsel's assistance ineffective when it is reasonable under the circumstances.
Wheat v. United States
The sixth amendment does not afford a defendant the right to chosen counsel when a conflict of interest may arise.
Mickens v. Taylor
When counsel represents successive defendants with a potential conflict of interest, a defendant must demonstrate that a conflict existed that affected the outcome of his case. Habeas corpus.
Illinois v. Allen
Confrontation clause. a defendant can lose his right to be present at trial if, after warning by the judge, he conducts himself in a manner so disorderly, disruptive, and disrespectful of the court that trial cannot be carried on with him in courtroom.
Crawford v. Washington
Sixth amendment confrontation clause demands, for an out of court statement to be admitted into evidence, the witness must be unavailable and defendant must have prior opportunity to cross examine the declarant. Cross examination; hearsay.
Richardson v. Marsh
The confrontation clause is not violated by the admission of a nontestifying codefendant confession, with proper limiting instruction, when the confession is redacted to eliminate defendant name and any reference to her existence. Redaction.
Davis v. Alaska
The confrontation clause requires that a defendant be afforded a meaningful opportunity to cross examine a witness against him concerning potential bias or motive. Juvenile delinquent.
Griffin v. California
Under the fifth amendment, a prosecutor may not comment on a defendant s decision not to testify at his trial and the court may not instruct the jury that the defendant's silence is evidence of his guilt. Bifurcated trial; self incrimination clause.
Rock v. Arkansas
The per se exclusion of all hypnotically refreshed testimony without regard to its reliability in a particular case is arbitrary and does not further a legitimate state interest.
Taylor v. Kentucky
Jury instructions; extrajudicial factors; proper instruction; presumption of innocence; lack of evidentiary value of an indictment; reasonable doubt; voir dire.
Darden v. Wainwright
Improper prosecutorial comments do not require reversal of a conviction unless they so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Closing argument.
Herrera v. Collins
Defendant's actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence is insufficient basis for challenging conviction on habeas review unless independent constitutional violation exists. Clemency.
Ashe v. Swenson
The fifth amendment protection against double jeopardy bars trial of an acquitted defendant on another charge unless the prior acquittal was based on evidence other than that involved in the second prosecution. Double jeopardy clause.
United States v. Dixon
Person who has been held in criminal contempt for committing criminal offense may not be criminally prosecuted for committing underlying offense if prosecution for the criminal offense does not require proof of different facts. Criminal contempt.
Heath v. Alabama
Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions for the same conduct by two states. autrefois; convict; dual sovereignty doctrine.
Hudson v. United States
A penalty will implicate the double jeopardy clause only if there was a legislative intent that the penalty be criminal in nature and if the statutory scheme is so punitive as to make the remedy criminal. Civil penalty.
Arizona v. Washington
Granting a mistrial over a defendant's objection when the prosecutor proves that there was a manifest necessity for the mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause.
Oregon v. Kennedy
If a defendant's request for a mistrial is granted, retrial is barred only if the mistrial was due to prosecutorial conduct that was intended to provoke a mistrial.
United States v. Scott
Retrial after the dismissal of a prosecution is barred only when the case was dismissed because the evidence was legally insufficient to support a conviction.
Burks v. United States
The double jeopardy clause bars retrial of a defendant whose conviction was reversed on appeal based on insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. Insanity defense.
United States v. Grayson
A judge may consider a defendant's false trial testimony when setting a sentence, as long as the sentence falls within the statutory limits. Sentencing guidelines.
Mitchell v. United States
A plea of guilty is not a waiver of the privilege against self incrimination at sentencing, and a sentencing judge may not draw an adverse inference from a defendant silence. Colloquy.
Blakely v. Washington
A judge may not increase a sentence beyond the maximum allowed for an offense based on facts not proven at trial or admitted as a part of the guilty plea. Determinate sentence; indeterminate sentencing.
McCleskey v. Kemp
In order to challenge a death sentence on the basis of racial discrimination, a defendant must show either a discriminatory purpose in his case or a discriminatory purpose in enacting or maintaining the death penalty. Venire.
Roper v. Simmons
The eighth amendment prohibits imposing the death penalty for crimes committed by a minor.
Stack v. Boyle
Under the eighth amendment, bail must be reasonably fixed to ensure a defendant will appear at trial based on the specific facts of the crime charged and not the character of the crime. Excessive bail.
Powell v. Alabama
A criminal defendant in state court must be given ample opportunity to retain counsel before trial, and, if none is retained, an attorney must be appointed to represent him or her. Right to counsel.
Brown v. Mississippi
Confessions supporting a conviction must be obtained through interrogation not violating the defendant due process rights under the fourteenth amendment.
Smith v. Maryland
An individual assumes the risk of disclosure of information knowingly conveyed to a third party. Pen register.
Lo-Ji Sales, Inc.  v.  New York
A warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized, and items not specifically listed on the search warrant may not be seized. Obscene.
Welsh v.  Wisconsin
Privacy in the home should not be violated via warrantless searches relative to minor offenses, even if evidence may be lost or destroyed.
New York v.  Belton
When a suspect is arrested in his vehicle, the interior of the car and any containers in it can be searched pursuant to the lawful arrest.
Chambers v.  Maroney
If have probable cause to believe automobile contains articles that they may be entitled to seize, may search the vehicle pursuant to lawful arrest, without warrant, or impound vehicle into police custody to search at later time. Fruits of the crime.
United States v. Chadwick
A search warrant is required to search personal property of an arrestee at the point where the property to be searched comes under the exclusive dominion of police authority. Inherently dangerous.
California v.  Acevedo
Police can search an automobile and all containers in it when they have probable cause to believe contraband is contained somewhere within the automobile. Stare decisis
Arizona v. Hicks
The plain view doctrine may not be used to justify warrantless searches or seizures of a dwelling, which require probable cause.
United States v. Matlock
Voluntary consent of any joint occupant of a residence to search the premises jointly occupied is valid against the co-occupant, permitting evidence discovered in the search to be used against the latter at a criminal trial.
Dunaway v. New York
Police may not subject a suspect to custodial interrogation unless they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.
California v. Hodari D.
An arrest requires either physical force or submission to the assertion of authority. Yield submission.
Alabama v. White
An anonymous tip received by police and not completely corroborated can be used as the basis for a terry stop as long as a significant portion of the tip is verified.
Michigan v. Long
Search of passenger compartment of automobile is permissible if officer has reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts and rational inferences from facts, that suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.
Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz
Police may set up temporary sobriety checkpoints and stop each car coming through to look for signs of intoxication.
Rakas v. Illinois
To sustain a fourth amendment challenge, a defendant must establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas searched or in the items seized. Seizure standing.
Minnesota v. Carter
Residential visitors, who are on the premises for only a short time and who claim no connection to the host other than to transact business, have no legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises under the fourth amendment. Curtilage.
Silverthorne Lumber Company v. United States
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine; independent source rule; the fourth amendment prohibits use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure, and evidence obtained as a result of that constitutional violation unless independent source.
Murray v. United States
Independent source doctrine applies to both evidence obtained for the first time during independent lawful search, and also to evidence initially discovered during, or as consequence of unlawful search, but later discovered independently.
Lisenba v. California
A voluntary confession does not violate due process when used to convict a defendant of a capital crime.
Colorado v. Connelly
A confession obtained from a person suffering from undetected mental illness is not a deprivation of due process in the absence of police misconduct.
Bram v. United States
An involuntary confession is not admissible as evidence against the accused by virtue of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Right against self incrimination.
Edwards v. Arizona
Right against self incrimination; right to counsel. accused who expresses a desire to deal only through counsel does not waive that right merely by responding to further police-initiated questioning unless accused initiates further communication.
Michigan v. Jackson
An accused who requests the appointment of counsel at arraignment is permitted under the sixth amendment to consult with that counsel during any custodial interrogation by the police, absent waiver by the accused.
McNeil v. Wisconsin
The sixth amendment right to counsel is offense-specific, and invocation of such right does not also invoke the right to counsel under the fifth amendment, which is not offense-specific.
Sherman v. United States
An entrapment defense must be sustained when the criminal conduct arises from the inducement of law enforcement officers, not the intention of the defendant.
Stovall v. Denno
A showup, rather than a traditional lineup, used for identification of an accused violates the accused due process rights when it is unnecessarily suggestive under the totality of the circumstances.
Blackledge v. Perry
Criminal defendant due process rights are violated if the prosecutor charges defendant with a more serious crime after defendant exercises statutory right to challenge conviction for less serious offense arising from the same conduct.
United States v. Williams
Exculpatory evidence. a criminal defendant in federal court is not entitled to a dismissal of the indictment because the prosecutor failed to present to the grand jury substantial exculpatory evidence.
Ohio v. Reiner
Despite a claim of innocence, the fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination is available to all those who have reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer. Transactional immunity.
Arizona v. Youngblood
The failure of the police to preserve potentially useful evidence is not a denial of due process of law unless the defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police. Exculpatory evidence.
State v. Reldan
Joinder of offenses; severance. no need for severance exists until a defendant makes a convincing showing that he has both important testimony to give concerning one count and a strong need to refrain from testifying on the other.
Nix v. Whiteside
Perjury; criminal defendant is not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel when his lawyer admonishes him not to give perjured testimony and threatens to disclose to the court any false testimony the defendant may give.
Scott v. Illinois
Under the sixth amendment, no indigent defendant may be sentenced to imprisonment unless the state has provided him with appointed counsel.
Godinez v. Moran
The standard for determining whether a defendant is competent to waive the right to counsel and to enter a guilty plea is the same as the standard for determining whether the defendant is competent to stand trial.
Brady v. United States
A guilty plea is not involuntary merely because it was entered into to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. voluntary; knowingly; coerced.
United States v. Brechner
A prosecutor is not bound by promises made pursuant to a cooperation agreement if the defendant does not fulfill his agreed promises. Misrepresentation.
McMann v. Richardson
If defendant plea of guilty is based on reasonably competent advice, it is intelligent plea not open to attack on the ground defendant counsel may have misjudged admissibility of defendant confession. habeas corpus.
Ham v. South Carolina
The fourteenth amendment requires a state trial judge to explore racial prejudices of prospective jurors to ensure a fair, impartial jury. Voir dire.
People v. Newton
When a prospective juror harbors preconceived notions of defendant guilt that cannot be set aside by consideration of the evidence, the juror must be dismissed for cause to ensure an impartial jury. Voir dire.
United States v. Thomas
When the evidence discloses any possibility that a juror views arise from the sufficiency of government evidence, disqualification must be denied. peremptory challenge; batson challenge; strike in camera.
Olden v. Kentucky
Under the sixth amendment, a defendant is entitled to confront witnesses against him, which includes the right of cross-examination. Confrontation clause.
Idaho v. Wright
The admission at trial of hearsay statements does not violate confrontation clause as long as declarant is unavailable and statements are sufficiently reliable, based either on firmly rooted hearsay exception or other showings of trustworthiness.
Cruz v. New York
When a non-testifying codefendant confession incriminating defendant is not directly admissible against defendant, the confrontation clause bars its admission at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed not to consider it against the defendant.
Gray v. Maryland
The use of blanks or deleted references in a redacted confession of a co-defendant may not be offered against a defendant at a joint trial, even with a limiting instruction. Redaction.
United States v. Burr
The sixth amendment right to compel witnesses includes the right to compel production of documents within the witness' possession. Subpoena duces tecum.
Taylor v. Illinois
The per se exclusion of evidence knowingly disclosed in violation of discovery rules does not violate the compulsory process clause. subpoena; offer of proof.
Williams v. New York
Imposition of death sentence for murder in the first degree is not void under due process clause solely because trial court considered additional information from probation department and other sources. Pre sentence investigaton.
McMillan v. Pennsylvania
Right to a jury trial is not violated by pennsylvania mandatory minimum sentencing act. may impose minimum upon finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, of certain facts. Defendant possessed a firearm during enumerated offense.
North Carolina v. Pearce
In imposing new sentence upon defendant whose original sentence has been set aside, trial judge may consider events subsequent to first trial and may impose sentence that is greater or less than original sentence.
Texas v. McCullough
The due process clause of the fourteenth amendment bars increased sentences on retrial that are motivated by vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge. Presumption.
Mistretta v. United States
Sentencing guidelines are constitutional, amounting to neither an excessive delegation of legislative power nor a violation of the separation of powers principle. Indeterminate sentence.
United States v. Harrington
Sentencing guidelines often produce harsh results that are patently unfair because they fail to take into account individual circumstances.
United States v. Dunnigan
Sentence enhancement for the defendant perjury at trial is not unconstitutional to the extent it does not undermine a defendant right to testify on his or her own behalf. Sentencing guidelines.
Koon v. United States
An appellate court should not review a district court sentencing departure decision de novo but instead should ask whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
Fong Foo v. United States
A judgment of acquittal, even if based on error, is a final judgment that cannot be appealed. Writ of mandamus; double jeopardy.
Downum v. United States
If an impaneled jury is discharged because the prosecution witness is unavailable, double jeopardy applies to bar the impaneling of a second jury and a new trial. Impanel.
Illinois v. Somerville
The manifest necessity requirement, which authorizes granting a mistrial in a criminal case and precludes the defendant from successfully raising a plea of double jeopardy, is met when the indictment is insufficient to charge a crime. Impanel.
Blockburger v. United States
Continuing offense; separate and distinct offenses, even if of the same nature, do not constitute a continuing offense, such as two sales of narcotics to the same purchaser, but at different times. The narcotics act penalizes each individual sale.
Brown v. Ohio
Double jeopardy. a conviction of a lesser-included offense precludes a subsequent prosecution for the greater offense even though the two actions occurred several days apart.
Harris v. Oklahoma
When the conviction of a greater crime cannot be had without conviction of a lesser crime, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction for the greater crime.
Bartkus v. Illinois
Autrefois. successive federal and state prosecutions do not violate the fifth amendment s double jeopardy clause. Sovereignty.
Jackson v. Virginia
A review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction requires a determination as to whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a "reasonable doubt" standard.
Teague v. Lane
Procedural rules usually do not apply retroactively. new constitutional rules of criminal procedure will not be applicable to those cases that have become final before the new rules are announced. Ratio decidendi.
Wainwright v. Sykes
Contemporaneous objection rule. absent a showing of cause and prejudice attendant to a state procedural waiver, a federal habeas corpus review of a waived objection to the admission of a confession at trial is barred. Coram nobis.
Smith v. Murray
A habeas corpus petition should be dismissed if, in the absence of any cause or prejudice, the underlying constitutional claim was not first raised in a state proceeding on direct appeal.
Apprendi v. New Jersey
Due process considerations of Fifth Amendment, applied to states through Fourteenth Amendment, requires an increase in maximum prison sentence to be based on facts found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidentiary hearing; hate crime.
Smith v. Texas
See also similar holdings in Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman and Brewer v. Quarterman.
City of Indianapolis v. Edmond
Highway checkpoints are unconstitutional when used for ordinary law enforcement purposes to advance a general interest in ordinary crime control.
Hector (A Slave) v. State
Coerced confession offered under the influence of pain are inadmissible; torture; interrogation; court must decide whether a confession was voluntary.
Chavez v. Martinez
Qualified immunity does not apply to deprivation of constitutional rights; coercive police interrogation resulting in statements not used at trial violates Constitution only if interrogator's conduct shocks the conscience.
Chavez v. Martinez
Self-incrimination impossible when there is no trial; violation of right against self-incrimination occurs only when one is compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case.
Oregon v. Elstad
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine aplies to Fourth amendment, not Fifth Amendment; although Miranda requires the suppression of an un-warned admission, the admissibility of any subsequent statement turns on whether it was made voluntarily.
Hoffman v. United States
Fifth Amendment applies to grand jury testimony; privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked if there is a possibility that the answers sought would have a tendency to incriminate the witness.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Death Penalty Case
Rompilla v. Beard; capital defendant and family say no mitigating evidence, but defense lawyer must make reasonable efforts to obtain and review prosecution evidence of aggravation at sentencing phase of trial; death penalty.
Sixth Amendment Right to Representation of Counsel
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez; wrongful denial of the right to counsel of the defendant's choosing is a structural error (fundamental error) not subject to harmless-error review; pro hac vice.
Suspicionless Searches of Parolees
Samson v. California; evidence seized in a suspicionless search of a parolee is admissible under the Fourth Amendment.
Voluntary Statements to Government Informant Admissable
Hoffa v. United States; Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures extend to hotel rooms, but statements voluntarily made to informant are not inadmissible.
Entrapment Defense
Sherman v. United States; repeated requests to commit a crime and pleas for sympathy establish entrapment; if defendant's criminal conduct arises from the inducement of law enforcement officers, not the intention of the defendant.
Police Searches Of Network Computers Require Warrant
United States v. Heckenkamp; absent clear warnings, connecting a personal computer to a computer network does not relinquish an otherwise objectively reasonable expectation of privacy; warrantless search.
Warrantless Search of Sealed, Opaque Container Unreasonable
United States v. Villarreal; individuals have a reasonable expectation that their letters and other sealed containers will not be opened by government agents without a warrant when they are surrendered to a carrier.
Pen Register
Smith v. Maryland; recovering telephone numbers with pen register not a search; individuals assume the risk of disclosure of information they knowingly convey to a third party.
Federal Wiretapping Laws
United States v. Turk; replaying of legally recorded conversations does not constitute an illegal aural interception; aural acquisition.
Employer Listening to Private Employee Telephone Conversations
Deal v. Spears; Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1996 creates exception to civil liability for aural interception during business use of a telephone extension; scope of exception limited to the business purpose.
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce; indictments need not ordinarily plead specific conduct by the defendant to be constitutional.
Shackled Defendant Before Jury
Deck v. Missouri; the constitution prohibits the use of visible shackles during the penalty phase of a criminal trial unless the use is justified by an essential state interest specific to the defendant on trial.
Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and Taped Testimony
Crawford v. Washington; out-of-court statements are inadmissible into evidence if defendant has no opportunity to cross-examine speaker, unless witness is unavailable and defendant has prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant; hearsay.
Search of Vehicle Incident to Arrest
Arizona v. Gant; Police may search vehicle incident to recent occupant's arrest only if arrestee is within reaching distance of passenger compartment at time search or reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence offense of arrest; stare decisis.
School Search of Student Property
Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding; school search permissible if scope of measures adopted is reasonably related to objectives of search and not excessively intrusive; in loco parentis; qualified immunity.
Search of Incident to Mistaken Arrest
Herring v. United States; The exclusionary rule is not an individual right and applies only where it results in appreciable police deterrence; respondeat superior.
Defendant Consent to Unrepresented Interrogation
Montejo v. Louisiana; A criminal defendant's consent to police-initiated interrogation cannot be presumed involuntary simply because the court previously appointed a lawyer to represent him; preliminary hearing.
Sentencing Judges May Consider Various Factors
Kimbrough v. United States; Under Booker, the cocaine Guidelines, like all other Sentencing Guidelines, are advisory only.
Appellate Court Review of Sentencing
Rita v. United States; An appellate court may apply a non-binding presumption that a sentencing court's imposition of a within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable; presumption.
Issue Preclusion Analysis for Double Jeapardy
Yeager v. United States; Although acquittals may preclude retrial on counts on which the same jury hangs, the consideration of hung counts has no place in the issue preclusion analysis for double jeopardy purposes; hung jury.
Scope of Vehicle Search Incident to Arrest
Arizona v. Gant; Police may search vehicle incident to recent occupant's arrest only if arrestee is within reaching distance of passenger compartment at time of search and reasonable to believe vehicle contains evidence of offense of arrest.
Knock and Announce Rule Waiting Time
Hudson v. Michigan; exclusionary rule not apply suppress evidence obtained in violation knock-and-announce rule; exclusionary rule; fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree-doctrine; inevitable discovery rule; no-knock search warrant.
Waiving Right to Counsel Post Indictment
Patterson v. Illinois; Whatever warnings suffice for Miranda's purposes will also be sufficient to safeguard the right to counsel in the context of post-indictment questioning; indict; sixth amendment.
Can Impeach with Inadmissable Evidence
Kansas v. Ventris; An informant's testimony, elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, is admissible to challenge the defendant's inconsistent testimony at trial; impeach.
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
When a vehicle is stopped at a traffic stop, the passenger as well as the driver is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment for search and seizure.
Fourth Amendment
Bond v. United States; search warrant is required before police can physically manipulate items.
Knock and Announce
United States v. Banks; Fourth Amendment; officers knocked and announced and then forcibly entered after reasonable suspicion of exigency had ripened.
Probable Cause
Brendlin v. California; fruit of the poisonous tree; officers did not have probable cause to stop vehicle, passenger was seized and evidence discovered as result was inadmissible.
Grand Jury
United States v. Awadallah; a grand jury may issue an arrest warrant.
Totality of the Circumstances
United States v. Arvizu; reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances.
Reasonable Cause
United States v. Knights; consent to future searches is a permitted condition of probation.
Search Warrant
Illinois v. McArthur; a person may be kept out of his home while the police obtain a search warrant.
Special Needs Search
Ferguson v. City of Charleston; drug test of a pregnant woman in a doctor's office is not a special needs search.
Illinois v. Lidster; traffic checkpoints may be part of a criminal investigation.
Hacking Computers Is Not Wiretapping
United States v. Steiger; computer hacking is not wiretapping; Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act.
Compulsion of Testimony
McKune v. Lile; limiting inmate privileges is not compution of testimony. Fifth Amendment. Right to remain silent. Miranda.
Criminal Procedure
Fellers v. United States; the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment have different tests for admissibility. Missouri v. Frye.
Right to Counsel
Texas v. Cobb; the Sixth Amendment right to counsel only attaches to the offense charged.
Jurisdictional Defect
United States v. Cotton; failure to state the amount of drugs in an indictment is not a jurisdictional defect.
Minimum Sentence Enhancement
Harris v. United States; fact that increase a minimum sentence do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Trial Strategy
Wiggins v. Smith; trial strategy must be supported by reasonable investigation.
Authority to Detain
Padilla v. Rumsfeld; Congress must provide authority to detain someone on US soil.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Massaro v. United States; ineffective assistance claims may be raised collaterally.
Detain Aliens
Demore v. Kim; aliens may be detained pending removal deportation.
Attachment of Right To Counsel
Rothgery v. Gillespie County. A criminal defendant's initial appearance before a judicial officer triggers the attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Brewer v. Williams and Michigan v. Jackson.
Reasonably Effective Assistance of Counsel
Harrington v. Richter; An unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application. State courts must be given some leeway. Strickland v. Washington. Strickland standard.
Right to Counsel Class Action
Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York; class action permitted as state must provide legal representation to indigent criminal defendants at all critical stages of the proceedings against them.
Fourth Amendment Search
United States v. Jones; the definition of a Fourth Amendment "search" evolves with advances in technology. GPS. Karo. Katz.
Exigent Circumstances Rule
Kentucky v. King; The exigent-circumstances rule applies only when the police do not gain entry to the premises by means of an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Fourth Amendment Email Protection
United States v. Warshak; email is subject to the Fourth Amendment so will protect an individual's privacy interest. A search warrant is necessary. Katz. Miller. Jackson.
Age as Miranda Custody Factor
J.D.B. v. North Carolina; A child's age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis because children may not feel free to terminate interrogation.
Presumption of Involuntariness
Maryland v. Shatzer; a break in custody ends the presumption of involuntariness established by Edwards v. Arizona.
Invoke Miranda Rights
Berghuis v. Thompkins; a suspect invoking his Miranda rights must do so unambiguously.
Joinder of Criminal Charges
State v. Pereira; joinder of offenses; joinder of criminal charges with multiple offenses is proper when the offenses charged are of similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or parts of a common scheme or plan.
Pretrial Publicity
Skilling v. United States; For purposes of obtaining a fair trial, it is sufficient if the jurors can lay aside their impressions or opinions and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.
Double Jeopardy Clause
Renico v. Lett; trail judge is entitled to deference in declaring a mistrial due to jury deadlock.
Federal Habeas Standard
Harrington v. Richter; when the state court's decision is unaccompanied by explanation, the petitioner's burden must be met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief.
Exclusionary Rule
Davis v. United States; deterrent effect of exclusionary rule; deter Fourth Amendment violations by police and law enforcement; Arizona v. Gant.
Reject Plea Bargain
Lafler v. Cooper; Ineffective assistance of counsel; malpractice; Strickland standard; Strickland prejudice; federal habeas relief; false promise; bad attorney; reject plea offer.
Communicate Plea Bargain
Missouri v. Frye; ineffective assistance of counsel; communicate plea offer; Strickland standard; Strickland prejudice.
Eyewitness Identification
Perry v. New Hampshire; suppress evidence of eyewitness identification; overly suggestive; police standing with suspect; reliability of identification; Due Process.
Duty to Disclose Material Evidence
Smith v. Cain; Brady Rule; the prosecutor violates right to due process if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to guilt or punishment.
Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
United States v. Agurs; Brady Rule; prosector must disclose material evidence, but does not have to disclose entire case file; Due Process.
Selective Prosecution
United States v. Armstrong; claim of selective prosecution based on race; claimant must produce evidence that similarly situated offenders of a different race could have been prosecuted but were not.
Florida v. Jardines; The curtilage of the house enjoys the same protection from unreasonable searches as the home itself; drug sniffing dogs are agents of the state for Fourth Amendment analysis.
Miranda Warnings
Florida v. Powell; Although the four warnings Miranda requires are invariable, there are no specific words that must be used to adequately convey them.
Cheek Swab
Maryland v. King; taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, is a legitimate police booking procedure and is reasonable under the Four Amendment. DNA cheek swab.
Padilla v. Kentucky; a criminal defense attorney fails to provide effective assistance if the attorney misleads a noncitizen client regarding the removal consequences of a conviction. Strickland Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Inffective Assistance of Counsel Standard
Premo v. Moore; The Sixth Amendment requires reasonable competence in representing the accused, but substantial deference must be afforded to counsel's judgment. Habeas relief standard. Supress confession.