Georgia (1972) Furman v. Georgia (1972) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that revolves around the Eighth Amendment ’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment in death penalty cases. In this case, petitioner Furman was convicted of murder in Georgia, petitioner Jackson was convicted of rape in Georgia, and petitioner Branch was convicted of rape in Texas.
United States v. United States District Court. for the Eastern District of Michigan. No. 70-153. Argued February 24, 1972. Decided June 19, 1972. 407 U.S. 297. Syllabus. The United States charged three defendants with conspiring to destroy, and one of them with destroying, Government property.
In what 1972 case did the Court rule that an attorney must be provided in all criminal cases where the penalty includes imprisonment gideon v. wainwright A landmark case in United States Supreme Court history.
· Gideon v. Wainwright In what 1972 case did the court rule that an attorney must be provided in all criminal caseswhere the penalty includes imprisonment? Argersinger v Hamlin Argersinger v Hamlin Conviction rates indigent defendants and for those who hired private attorneys are about the same in federal and state courts True True
In 1972, in Argersinger v. Hamlin, the Supreme Court further extended the right to legal counsel to include any defendant charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment. Gideon v. Wainwright was part of the Supreme Court's innovative approach to criminal justice in the 1950s and 1960s.
Decision: In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.
Gideon argued that by failing to appoint counsel for him, Florida violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, certain protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were held to also apply to states.
1. Gideon's legal significance in incorporating the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for indigent felony criminal defendants in state courts makes the case an important precedent of the court.
Wainwright (1963) - Government must pay for a lawyer for defendants who cannot afford one themselves. - 14th Amendment says that states shall not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
3. What was unusual about the petition Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States? The petition Gideon filed with the Supreme Court of the United States was handwritten and prepared by Gideon himself without any legal assistance.
In which case did the Supreme Court hold that the right to trail by jury for serious offenses was a fundamental right and applicable to the states? In Ballew v. Georgia (1978), the court unanimously held the minimum number of jurors must be...
On March 18, 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Gideon v. Wainwright, unanimously holding that defendants facing serious criminal charges have a right to counsel at state expense if they cannot afford one.
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves.
In a 5-4 Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona (1966) ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Alabama3 in 1932, the Court in Gideon held that the Sixth Amendment's right to legal representation was “fundamental and essential to fair trials,” thus entitling indigent felony defendants to court-appointed counsel in all American criminal cases.
Alabama3 in 1932, the Court in Gideon held that the Sixth Amendment's right to legal representation was “fundamental and essential to fair trials,” thus entitling indigent felony defendants to court-appointed counsel in all American criminal cases.
After penciling a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court about his right to legal representation, Gideon's case determined that a criminal defendant who cannot afford to pay for counsel must be provided with a lawyer at no cost. Louie Wainwright (September 11, 1923) was the Florida Department of Corrections Secretary.
an attorney usually employed (at no cost of the accused) by the government to represent poor persons accused of a crime
Criminal rights like Right to a speedy trial and a public trial
A nonmonetary condition for the pretrial release of an accused individual; an alternative to monetary bail that is granted after the court determines that the accused has ties in the community; has no prior record of defult, and is likely to appear at subsequent proceedings
Supreme Court found bail to be a traditional right to freedom before trial that permits unhampered preparation of a defense and prevents the criminal defendant from being punished prior to conviction
The purpose if bail is to ensure the return of the accused at subsequent proceedings.
prividing counsel to indigent offenders by having attorneys under contract to the county handle all ( or some) such cases
a method of picking judges through nonpartisan elections as a way to ensure that judges adhere to high standards of judicial performance
It involves the delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval. Successive Presidents for more than one-quarter of a century have authorized such surveillance in varying degrees, [ Footnote 1] without guidance from the Congress or a definitive decision of this Court. This case brings the issue here for the first time. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government's right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen's right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion.
The Government then filed in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for a writ of mandamus to set aside the District Court order, which was stayed pending final disposition of the case. After concluding that it had jurisdiction, [ Footnote 3] that court held that the surveillance was unlawful, and that the District Court had properly required disclosure of the overheard conversations, 444 F.2d 651 (1971). We granted certiorari, 403 U.S. 930.
Where the Act authorizes surveillance, the procedure to be followed is specified in § 2518. Subsection (1) thereof requires application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for a prior order of approval, and states in detail the information required in such application. [ Footnote 5]
The express grant of authority to conduct surveillances is found in § 2516, which authorizes the Attorney General to make application to a federal judge when surveillance may provide evidence of certain offenses. These offenses are described with meticulous care and specificity.
The District Court held that the surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment, and ordered the Government to make full disclosure to Plamondon of his overheard conversations. 321 F. Supp. 1074 (ED Mich.1971).
One of the defendants, Plamondon , was charged with the dynamite bombing of an office of the Central Intelligence Agency in Ann Arbor, Michigan. During pretrial proceedings, the defendants moved to compel the United States to disclose certain electronic. Page 407 U. S. 300.
2. The Fourth Amendment (which shields private speech from unreasonable surveillance) requires prior judicial approval for the type of domestic security surveillance involved in this case. Pp. 407 U. S. 314 -321; 407 U. S. 323 -324.
The lawyers who represented The Times before the Supreme Court in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case included James Goodale, second from right.
The District Court for the Southern District of New York, in The New York Times case, and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in The Was hington Post case, held that the government had not met that burden. We agree.
The most prominent exception was a 1979 case in which the government tried to prevent the Progressive magazine from publishing an article about the hydrogen bomb , said George Freeman, the executive director of the Media Law Resource Center.
Instead, The Times advised the Justice Department that it had no plans to comply. “The Times must respectfully decline the request of the attorney general, believing that it is in the interest of the people of this country to be informed of the material contained in this series of articles,” the newspaper said in a statement.
The New York Times Corporate Archive. “I have been advised by the secretary of defense that the material published in The New York Times on June 13, 14, 1971, captioned 'Key Texts from Pentagon’s Vietnam Study,’ contains information relating to the national defense of the United States and bears a top secret ...
Sulzberger, over the signature of Mr. Nixon’s attorney general, John N. Mitchell: On June 14, 1971, John N. Mitchell, the attorney general of the United States, ordered The Times to stop publishing the Pentagon Papers.
What distinguished the Pentagon Papers was that The Times was not only providing interpretive articles, but also presenting the documents themselves, which had been leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst who had worked on the history.
WHITE, J., wrote the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BLACKMUN, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed an opinion dissenting in part, post, p. 629. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 633. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 648.
[ Footnote 1 ] The District Court permitted Senator Gravel to intervene in the proceeding on Dr. Rodberg's motion to quash the subpoena ordering his appearance before the grand jury and accepted motions from Gravel to quash the subpoena and to specify the exact nature of the questions to be asked Rodberg. The Government contested Gravel's standing to appeal the trial court's disposition of these motions on the ground that, had the subpoena been directed to the Senator, he could not have appealed from a denial of a motion to quash without first refusing to comply with the subpoena and being held in contempt. United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323 (1940). The Court of [408 U.S. 606, 609] Appeals, United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d 753, 756-757 (CA1 1972), held that because the subpoena was directed to third parties, who could not be counted on to risk contempt to protect intervenor's rights, Gravel might be "powerless to avert the mischief of the order" if not permitted to appeal, citing Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 13 (1918). The United States does not here challenge the propriety of the appeal.
606, 628] the scope of grand jury inquiry. Rodberg's immunity, testimonial or otherwise, extends only to legislative acts as to which the Senator himself would be immune. The grand jury, therefore, if relevant to its investigation into the possible violations of the criminal law, and absent Fifth Amendment objections, may require from Rodberg answers to questions relating to his or the Senator's arrangements, if any, with respect to republication or with respect to third-party conduct under valid investigation by the grand jury, as long as the questions do not implicate legislative action of the Senator. Neither do we perceive any constitutional or other privilege that shields Rodberg, any more than any other witness, from grand jury questions relevant to tracing the source of obviously highly classified documents that came into the Senator's possession and are the basic subject matter of inquiry in this case, as long as no legislative act is implicated by the questions. 17
Similar considerations lead us to disagree with the Court of Appeals insofar as it fashioned, tentatively at least, a nonconstitutional testimonial privilege protecting Rodberg from any questioning by the grand jury concerning the matter of republication of the Pentagon Papers. This privilege, thought to be similar to that protecting executive officials from liability for libel, see Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 (1959), was considered advisable " [t]o the extent that a congressman has responsibility to inform his constituents . . . ." 455 F.2d, at 760. But we cannot carry a judicially fashioned privilege so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act of Congress or to frustrate the grand jury's inquiry into whether publication of these classified documents violated a federal criminal statute. The socalled executive privilege has never been applied to shield executive officers from prosecution for crime, the Court of Appeals was quite sure that third parties were neither immune from liability nor from testifying about the republication matter, and we perceive no basis for conferring a testimonial privilege on Rodberg as the Court of Appeals seemed to do.
Here, private publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence. The Senator [408 U.S. 606, 626] had conducted his hearings; the record and any report that was forthcoming were available both to his committee and the Senate. Insofar as we are advised, neither Congress nor the full committee ordered or authorized the publication. 16 We cannot but conclude that the Senator's arrangements with Beacon Press were not part and parcel of the legislative process.
Legislative acts are not all-encompassing. The heart of the Clause is speech or debate in either House. Insofar as the Clause is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which Members participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either House. As the Court of Appeals put it, the courts have extended the privilege to matters beyond pure speech or debate in either House, but "only when necessary to prevent indirect impairment of such deliberations." United States v. Doe, 455 F.2d, at 760.
We are convinced also that the Court of Appeals correctly determined that Senator Gravel's alleged arrangement with Beacon Press to publish the Pentagon Papers was not protected speech or debate within the meaning of Art. I, 6, cl. 1, of the Constitution.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the estimated number of illegal abortions in the United States ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Until the late 19th century, abortion was legal in the United States before “quickening,” the point at which a woman could first feel movements of the fetus, typically around the fourth month of pregnancy.
Earlier, in 1964, Wade was in the national spotlight when he prosecuted Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President John F. Kennedy.
By the 1880s, abortion was outlawed across most of the country. During the 1960s, during the women’s rights movement, court cases involving contraceptives laid the groundwork for Roe v. Wade. In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law banning the distribution of birth control to married couples, ruling that the law violated their implied ...
Some of the early regulations related to abortion were enacted in the 1820s and 1830s and dealt with the sale of dangerous drugs that women used to induce abortions. Despite these regulations and the fact that the drugs sometimes proved fatal to women, they continued to be advertised and sold.
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by ...
Wade has proved controversial, and Americans remain divided in their support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Since the 1973 ruling, many states have imposed restrictions on abortion rights. Abortion Before Roe v. Wade.
JUSTICE POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
David H. Allshouse, Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Leroy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, and Robert B. Hoffman and Allen C. Warshaw, Deputy Attorneys General.
We granted the petition for certiorari because of the importance of the question presented to the administration of state institutions for the mentally retarded. 451 U.S. 982 (1981).
Chief Judge Seitz, concurring in the judgment, considered the standards articulated by the majority as indistinguishable from those applicable to medical malpractice claims. In Chief Judge Seitz' view, the Constitution "only requires that the courts make certain that professional judgment in fact was exercised." Id., at 178. He concluded that the appropriate standard was whether the defendants' conduct was "such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards in the care and treatment of this plaintiff as to demonstrate that the defendants did not base their conduct on a professional judgment." Ibid. 15
In applying [457 U.S. 307, 313] the Fourteenth Amendment, the court found that the involuntarily committed retain liberty interests in freedom of movement and in personal security. These were "fundamental liberties" that can be limited only by an "overriding, non-punitive" state interest.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and remanded for a new trial. 644 F.2d 147 (1980). The court held that the Eighth Amendment, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment of those convicted of crimes, was not an appropriate source for determining the rights of the involuntarily committed. Rather, the Fourteenth Amendment and the liberty interest protected by that Amendment provided the proper constitutional basis for these rights. In applying [457 U.S. 307, 313] the Fourteenth Amendment, the court found that the involuntarily committed retain liberty interests in freedom of movement and in personal security. These were "fundamental liberties" that can be limited only by an "overriding, non-punitive" state interest. Id., at 157-158 (footnote omitted). It further found that the involuntarily committed have a liberty interest in habilitation designed to "treat" their mental retardation. Id., at 164-170. 12
An 8-day jury trial was held in April 1978. Petitioners introduced evidence that respondent participated in several programs teaching basic self-care skills. 7 A comprehensive behavior-modification program was designed by staff members to reduce Romeo's aggressive behavior, 8 but that program was never implemented because of his mother's objections. 9 [457 U.S. 307, 312] Respondent introduced evidence of his injuries and of conditions in his unit. 10
Duties of a prosecutor: -provi des advice to law enforcement officers during investigation to determine whether criminal charges should be filed. - during pretrial stage, represents the state in plea negotiations, pretrial motions, and bail hearings. -represents the state at hearings, criminal trials, and appeals.
Judicial functions of a judge: -oversee the trial process (control the appropriateness of conduct, settle questions of evidence and procedure , and guide the questioning of witnesses. -instruct jurors on which evidence is proper to examine and which should be ignored.
When a jury trial is waved, the judge must: decide whether the defendant is guilty as charged. When the U.S. Supreme Court justices reach a split decision, the chief justice assigns a member of the majority group to write the: opinion. -another justice normally writes dissent, or minority, opinion.
In cases where the convicted is convicted of two or more charges, and the judges sentences begin on the same day and are completed when the longest term is served it is called a: concurrent sentence. This gives the victim the opportunity to tell of their experiences and describe their ordeal. victim impact statement.