Kansas v. Cheever concerned for the most part the use and understanding of the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Cheever, had shot and killed an officer trying to arrest him. However, in his defense Cheever stated that his prior and current usage of methamphetamine affected his mental capacity to intently kill an officer. This type of defense is known later throughout the arguments as the voluntary intoxication defense which the State of Kansas recognizes. Moreover, Cheever used his testimony concerning his mental capacity as well as an expert witness, a psychiatric doctor, to present his case. The Federal court, the court in which the trial was first held, ordered Cheever to undergo examination with a court appointed expert of mental health. The State of Kansas used the examination provided by the court appointed expert as evidence against Cheever as well as the testimony provided by the court appointed expert. The Federal court found Cheever guilty of capital murder, which means being eligible for the death penalty. However, Cheever appealed and eventually the Federal Court decision was overturned by the Kansas Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the decision on the premises that the court appointed expert’s testimony about Cheever’s mental evaluation was not valid based on the voluntary intoxication defense. Therefore, the expert’s testimony was unconstitutional because it violated Cheever’s Fifth Amendment, the right to not be compelled to self-incrimination. This case was raised to the U.S Supreme court of whether indeed there was truly a violation of the Fifth Amendment. General Schmidt on behalf of the petitioner in other words the State of Kansas, began the arguments upon the justices of the U.S Supreme... ... middle of paper ... ...to the question whether the State violated the Defendant’s Fifth Amendment by using evidence from court order mental evaluation of the Defendant to rebut the Defendant’s defense. Justice Sotomayor was the Justice to write the unanimous opinion. She stated that by denying the right of the prosecution to introduce psychiatric evidence in order to rebut the psychiatric evidence the Defendant provided undermined the process in which the jury hears both sides of whatever discussion especially dealing with the mental capacity of a person. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not restrict the prosecution of introducing like kind evidence and doesn’t help defendants avoid proper cross examination. The concept of the decision was when a defendant provides evidence of an expert and his own when outing their mental health at issue the prosecution may do so as well to rebut.
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
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
In the case Ford v. Wainwright the court chose to side with Wainwright. Wainwright won this case since the courts felt the need to go against the eighth amendment since the amendment was not set in stone according to them. Yes, Ford was insane he shot the cop and must have not been held up to it or at the most being executed according to the eighth amendment. Was executing Ford a slightly over the top existence that he was insane? Although ford died while awaiting his execution he was still going to be executed, he still lost the case. Although Ford was convicted from killing a cop the detail that he was insane still doesn’t change so should the amendment?
The reason being, the Supreme Court found that the expert evidence was not only useful, but was required to have a more in-depth understanding of the issues surrounding battered women. The rationale was, without expert testimony most people would be ignorant to spousal abuse. It was thought that without expert testimony, jurors would make assumptions about the stereotypes that may have been popularized by society as well ignore the importance of previous events that led up to the incident. Moreover, the trial judge charged the jurors properly, explaining that as long as there is some admissible evidence to establish the foundation for the expert 's opinion, he cannot subsequently instruct the jury to completely ignore the testimony. The judge also warned the jury that the more the expert relies on facts, not proven in evidence the less weight the jury may attribute to the opinion. Furthermore, expert evidence does not and cannot usurp the jury 's function of deciding whether, in fact, the accused 's perceptions and actions were reasonable. But fairness and the integrity of the trial process demand that the jury have the opportunity to hear that
This was a very controversial issue, because the court faced the decision of whether to go with the laws that the forefathers had come up with or grant people right to counsel so that the truth can be brought out. The issue was whether the state of Florida violated Gideon's Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, because they did not provide him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.
Issue: Did the State of Illinois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his fitness to keep his children?
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.
Meyer v. State of Nebraska. 262 U.S. 390, 399, 43 Sct. 625, 626, 67 L.Ed. 1042. (1923)
TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 January 2014.
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
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.
During the criminal proceeding of the Andrea trial, there were several mental health professionals that were call by the defense to testify in the first trial, including several of her treating psychiatrists. In the Yates trial, both defense and prosecution experts agreed on three issues, Yates suffered from a mental disease, she knew that her conduct was against the law and that a subjective moral wrongfulness issue had to be considered (Resnick P,2007).
The US Supreme Court overturned Colorado’s Amendment 2. The majority opinion issued by Justice Kennedy concluded the following: "Based on this analysis of the potentia...