Clark v. Arizona
548 U.S. 735 (2006)
Facts: During a traffic stop involving Clark, Clark pulled out a gun and killed the law enforcement officer. Subsequently, Clark was charged with murder in the first degree. Although Clark admitted to shooting the officer, he claimed that he was not aware of what he was doing at the time, nor did he intend to shoot the law enforcement officer due to his paranoid schizophrenia. The court ruled that Clark was not allowed to use any evidence that showed he was insane for the purpose of disproving his criminal responsibility. Because of this ruling, no psychiatric evidence was divulged thus no longer being able to prove the lack of mens rea. Clark was convicted during trial naming Arizona case law as support for this decision.
Issue(s): Does the sates exclusion of evidence involving a defendant’s mental state, violate their due process? Holding: No, the state's exclusion of evidence involving a defendant's mental state did not violate due process.
Reasoning: The court states that the exclusion of evidence is allowed, only if the probative value
…show more content…
Holding: Yes, it is required for any and all evidence that may lead to a heightened penalty is provided to the jury for review and be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning: It was found that it is unconstitutional for the jury to not be provided the evidence and/or findings that could potentially increase the penalties that a defendant faces. The Court found that the Due Process Clause does, in fact, require that any evidence proven beyond a reasonable doubt must be submitted. This ensures ""the moral force of the criminal law not be diluted by a standard of proof that leaves people in doubt whether innocent men are being condemned."
Vacco v. Quill
521 U.S. 793
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
Arizona was not necessary to the decision. Justice Stevens both concurred and dissented in part of the judgments. Stevens claimed that recording the confession doesn’t mean it is involuntary or that it doesn’t follow the Due Process Clause. Stevens believed that Connelly’s incompetence to stand trial meant he could have been incompetent to waive his rights. Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented and also believed that Connelly’s mental state was a reasonable factor in determining the validity of his waiving of rights. They thought that a confession given by a defendant who is mentally ill is one not given under a clear state of mind and is not voluntary. Without his confession, officers would have never obtained valid evidence to convict him of murder. Due process requires independent collection of evidence that would contribute to a conviction. Since there was no police misconduct, the evidence gathered had to be because of Connelly’s free, voluntary, confession but he was not able to make an intellectual decision at that
The police responded to a tip that a home was being used to sell drugs. When they arrived at the home, Gant answered the door and stated that he expected the owner to return home later. The officers left and did a record check of Gant and found that his driver’s license had been suspended and there was a warrant for his arrest. The officers returned to the house later that evening and Gant wasn’t there. Gant returned shortly and was recognized by officers. He parked at the end of the driveway and exited his vehicle and was placed under arrest 10 feet from his car and was placed in the back of the squad car immediately. After Gant was secured, two officers searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine.
The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
The concurring opinion was given by Justice Blackmun. He agreed with the majority opinion that the exclusionary rule is valid as long as the officer and magistrate act in ?good faith?, but he wanted to stress that it is not a rule to take lightly, that it may change with how cases such as this are handled in the future. (United States v. Leon ,
(1) Based on case law from Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, the Supreme Court held that the essentials of due process must be followed. The first holding given by the Supreme Court involved the indirect issue of due process. The Supreme Court held that in juvenile court proceedings the juvenile must be treated fairly and be given the essentials of due process.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
The Supreme Court formulated the standards of competency in the criminal process, in the case of Dusky v, united states, 362 U.S 402 (1960). The standards set by the court are broad, vague and open-textured. It allows clinical evaluations in the interpretation and application of the test. The conviction of a defendant while he or she has mental illness or incompetence violates due process.
3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
The Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado case is about a man, Miguel Pena-Rodriguez, who committed crimes of unlawful sexual conduct and harassment seeking a new trial because of the racial basis of one of the jurors. In this case the petitioner is Miguel Pena-Rodriguez believes that his guilty verdict is not valid because of the racial biased by a juror, which is validated by two other jurors recounts. The state of Colorado, the respondent, will not grant a retrial because of Rule 606(b), which, “prohibits introduction of evidence regarding statements made in jury deliberations,” and therefore Miguel Pena-Rodriguez could not use the racial comment from the jurors in this retrial (Ballotpedia). However, Miguel Pena-Rodriguez argues that this rule cannot apply to cases of racial biases because it impedes on his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury (Ballotpedia). In Colorado, and in many states the Rule 606(b), otherwise known as the “no impeachment rule,” prevent jurors from having to
Arizona V. Hicks discusses the legal requirements law enforcement needs to meet to justify the search and seizure of a person’s property under the plain view doctrine. The United States Supreme Court delivered their opinion of this case in 1987, the decision is found in the United States reports, beginning on page 321, of volume 480. This basis of this case involves Hicks being indicted for robbery, after police found stolen property in Hick’s home during a non-related search of the apartment. Hicks had accidentally discharged a firearm into the apartment below him, injuring the resident of that apartment. Police responded and searched Hicks apartment to determine the identity of the shooter, recover the weapon, and to locate other victims.
In this position paper I have chosen Bloodsworth v. State ~ 76 Md.App. 23, 543 A.2d 382 case to discuss on whether or not the forensic evidence that was submitted for this case should have been admissible or not. To understand whether or not the evidence should be admissible or not we first have to know what the case is about.