Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Prouse (1979) and other cases, Scalia claimed that because there was a traffic violation, the search and seizure did not violate constitutional rights: "such stops could be made regardless of an officer's true intentions." [4] The Court agreed that race has no place in enforcement by pointing to the Equal Protection Clause. It claimed that as ...
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.
Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the criminal procedure topic of entrapment.A narrowly divided court overturned the conviction of a Nebraska man for receiving child sexual abuse material through the mail, ruling that postal inspectors had implanted a desire to do so through repeated written entreaties.
Judges and magistrates are not adjuncts to law enforcement officials and as such are neutral and have no stake in the outcome of criminal prosecutions. The suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant should be ordered only on a case-by-case basis and only in those instances where exclusion would promote the purposes of the ...
The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding criminal procedure, including: Article Three, along with Amendments Five, Six, Eight, and Fourteen. Such cases have come to comprise a substantial portion of the Supreme Court 's docket.
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. [1] The case was decided a year after the court had held in Gideon v. Wainwright that indigent criminal defendants have a right to be provided counsel at ...
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the prosecution's failure to inform the jury that a witness had been promised not to be prosecuted in exchange for his testimony was a failure to fulfill the duty to present all material evidence to the jury, and constituted a violation of due process, requiring a new trial. [1]
Case history; Prior: United States v. Dickerson, 971 F. Supp. 1023 (E.D. Va. 1997); reversed, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999).: Holding; The mandate of Miranda v.Arizona that a criminal suspect be advised of certain constitutional rights governs the admissibility at trial of the suspect's statements, not the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 that such statements simply be voluntarily given.