How Justice Sonia Sotomayor Decides Michigan v. Bryant
When deciding Michigan v. Bryant, Justice Sotomayor focuses on these two precedents the most, Crawford v. Washington, and Davis v. Washington. She starts the court’s opinion by stating the meaning of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Justice Sotomayor cites, “In all criminal prosecution, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him” (Michigan v. Bryant). Then, she explains that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the Confrontation Clause to apply to the states. She goes on and talks about Ohio v. Roberts, and how this case reflects on the admissibility of statements when the witness is not available and their reliability:
[W]e explained
…show more content…
A witness would be someone who bears a testimony. A testimony is a declaration to establish a fact. According to Justice Sotomayor, the court noted that “[a]n accuses who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not” (Michigan v. Bryant). Then she adds that “in order for testimonial evidence to be admissible, the Sixth Amendment ‘demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity to cross-examination,’” which in this case it did not happen because Mr. Covington died a few hours after the incident (Michigan v. Bryant). Then, Justice Sotomayor refers to Crawford again and makes the remarks that this precedent noted that “prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and … police interrogations” can be testimonial (Michigan v. Bryant). Therefore, the admission of Sylvia’s statements were testimonial. Those statements were also a violation of the Sixth Amendment because she claimed her spousal privilege, therefore, she could not be cross-examined. Now, the question was which police interrogations counts as a testimony and had implications with the Confrontation Clause, so, Justice Sotomayor decided to reflect on Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana again. According to Sotomayor, the court concluded that based on Davis “not all those questioned by the police are witnesses and not all ‘interrogations by law enforcement officers’ are subject to the Confrontation Clause” (Michigan v. Bryant). She then states the facts of these two domestic violence cases to provide some examples on what circumstances a statement can be considered as
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
The case of Tennessee vs Reeves talks about two youngsters named Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman who were students at the West Carrol Middle School who were planning to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). They had planned to poison the teacher with rat poison by putting it in the teacher’s drink (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). There were other students who had found out, and the plot had been reported to the teacher and principal of the school (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). The students were convicted of attempt to commit secondary degree murder based on the fact that the poison was brought to the school and if it wasn’t because the plot to killed Miss. Geiger was interrupted the crime would have taken place.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
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
Laci Peterson, a 27-year-old wife who was eight months pregnant, disappeared on December 24, 2002. When the body of the California woman and her unborn child were found four months later, her husband, Scott, was charged with two counts of murder. Detective Craig Grogan gave a sworn statement that he had probable cause to believe Mr. Peterson committed two counts of the crime of 187 Penal Code, homicide, on or about December 23, 2002 or December 24,2002, in the county of Stanislaus. April 17, 2003 at 0658 hours the Judge of the Superior Court in Stanislaus County, California issued a warrant for the arrest of Scott Lee Peterson. The court found that the District Attorney’s office did, in fact, have probable cause to bring Scott Peterson in. The Judge specifically addressed bail in the warrant. No bail was granted. April 18, 2003 at 1110 hours, Scott Peterson was arrested at the Torrey Pines Golf Course, in Sand Diego County, California. At the time of his arrest, Peterson had colored his hair blonde, grown a beard and mustache, and was carrying $15,000.00 in cash. During his arrest police also discovered that Peterson’s car was full of camping and survival equipment. Peterson was arrested less than 20 minutes from the Mexican border. Peterson waived booking in San Mateo County, California, and was transferred back to Stanislaus County, California, where he was formally booked by the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department.
The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall. Their concerns were that the majority opinion may be the beginning of the exclusionary rule slipping away. Brennon had observed that the Court had slowly began to let more things slide against the Fourth Amendment, and that the ?good faith? exception directly contradicted the Fourth Amendment. He also held that it may seem that the Court may pick and choose what evidence it allows in interest of obtaining a conviction. (United States v. Leon , 1984)
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Blackburn was candid that most of his clients were “in the (drug) life at some level” and many of them had prior arrests. For instance, Billy Wafer, was on probation for possession of marijuana at the time when he was accused of selling cocaine to Coleman. “I ain’t an angel but I’ve never sold drugs,” said Wafer. Wafer, unlike most of the other defendants, had his charges dropped because he had a rock solid alibi with time cards from his job. Also, his supervisor testified verifying he was at work when Coleman claimed he sold him cocaine.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
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.
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...
Miranda v. Arizona is a very important activist decision that required police to inform criminal suspects of their rights before they could be interrogated. These rights include: the right to remain silent, that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed to you be the court. In this case the Fifth Amendment's right that a person may not be forced to incriminate one's self was interpreted in an activist way as meaning that one must be aware of this right before on is interrogated by the police. Prior to this ruling it was common practice to force and coerce confessions from criminal suspects who did not know they had the right not to incriminate themselves.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
...’ testimony at trial. This rule has played a big role in the American system like in the case of Mapp V. Ohio. Ohio police officers had gone to a home of a women to ask her question about a recent bombing and requested to search her house. When she denied them access, they arrested her and searched her house which led them to find allegedly obscene books, pictures, and photographs.